Devine V. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 101 A.3d 1235

Background

Claimant Kathryn M. Devine worked for Legends Hospitality providing catering at a ballpark and filed for unemployment benefits with a benefit year beginning April 21, 2013 (base year = four quarters of 2012).
Base-year wages: $0 (Q1), $5,506 (Q2), $15,134 (Q3 — highest quarter), $1,260 (Q4); total = $21,900.
The Service Center denied benefits because under the amended Section 401(a) at least 49.5% of base-year wages must be paid outside the highest quarter, which Claimant did not meet.
Claimant appealed, arguing she was effectively a year‑round employee (not the seasonal workers the 2012 amendment targeted) and asserting an Equal Protection challenge and requests for alternate computations (pre‑2013 20% rule or weekly‑average method).
The Referee and Board affirmed denial, finding Claimant failed to meet statutory financial eligibility and that the Board had no discretion to disregard the legislative financial requirement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant meets the amended financial eligibility requirement (49.5% outside highest quarter)	Devine: Although earnings concentrated in season, she worked year‑round events and should not be excluded; seeks alternative calculation	Board/Employ. & Statute: Statutory 49.5% requirement applies; Claimant’s wages do not meet it	Held: Claimant failed to satisfy Section 401(a)/404; denial of benefits affirmed
Whether the 2012 amendment is unconstitutional under Equal Protection as applied to Devine	Devine: Amendment arbitrarily targets seasonal workers and unfairly excludes year‑round workers like her	Board: Amendment is a legitimate legislative classification to measure labor force attachment; Board must follow statute	Held: Amendment survives rational‑basis review; no Equal Protection violation
Whether a more flexible or alternative computation (pre‑2013 20% rule or weekly average) should apply	Devine: Requests application of pre‑amendment 20% rule or an annual/weekly averaging method for fairness	Board: Sections 401/404 are explicit; no authority to apply alternative methods	Held: Court refuses to apply alternative calculations; statutory scheme controls
Whether Board had discretion to deviate from statutory financial criteria	Devine: Board should accommodate equitable considerations for year‑round work	Board: No discretion to alter legislatively established financial requirements	Held: Board correctly declined to deviate; must apply statute as written

Key Cases Cited

Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 466 A.2d 107 (Pa. 1983) (upheld financial‑eligibility tests under rational‑basis review; classifications for economic regulation reviewed minimally)
Poola v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 555 A.2d 97 (Pa. 1989) (financial requirements show attachment to labor force rationale)
Lopata v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 493 A.2d 657 (Pa. 1985) (same legislative purpose background for eligibility rules)
Pagliei v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 37 A.3d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (claimant bears burden to prove financial eligibility)
Jackson v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 933 A.2d 155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (same burden and scope of review principles)