E. Rodriguez v. UCBR
903 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Claimant Elise Rodriguez quit her office-manager job (annual pay $30,000) on December 24, 2015 to relocate from Pennsylvania to Florida with her husband.
- Husband, Miguel Caballero, worked intermittently in 2015 as a truck driver through temporary agencies but could not obtain permanent positions because of his criminal record. He had periods of unemployment and a failed business venture.
- The couple’s church offered the husband a full-tuition scholarship to attend a theological/ministry program in Tampa; the school required the family to relocate together.
- Claimant filed for unemployment benefits; the Service Center and a Referee denied benefits under Section 402(b) (voluntary leaving without necessitous and compelling cause). The Board affirmed after remand, finding the move was due to personal preference (education opportunity), not necessity.
- The Board and Majority held Claimant satisfied the commuting prong of the follow-the-spouse doctrine but failed the second prong (circumstances beyond spouse’s control; reasonable, good-faith decision; not personal preference) because husband lacked a firm job offer and other evidence of necessity. The court affirmed. Judge Cosgrove dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez's Argument | Board/Employer Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quitting to follow spouse who accepted a scholarship is a "necessitous and compelling" reason under Section 402(b) (follow-the-spouse doctrine) | Move was compelled to preserve family unit and commuting made keeping job impossible; satisfies follow-the-spouse doctrine | Move was driven by spouse’s personal preference to pursue education; husband could work temporarily and had no firm post-school employment; not beyond spouse’s control | Claimant satisfied commuting prong but failed to show second prong (circumstances beyond spouse’s control); benefits denied and Board’s order affirmed |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings | Record supports necessity to move (family unity, husband’s employment problems) | Board findings are supported by record; claimant failed to challenge specific findings on appeal | Court finds claimant did not challenge findings; Board’s factual findings binding and supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether a spouse’s scholarship/education alone creates necessitous and compelling cause | Scholarship and church requirement to relocate make the move reasonable and in good faith | Scholarship alone is voluntary and may reflect personal preference; absence of a firm employment offer after training undermines necessity | Scholarship without a definite employment prospect and absent showing of circumstances beyond spouse’s control does not automatically satisfy the second prong |
| Whether unemployment law should be liberally construed to avoid disrupting family unity in such circumstances | Law is remedial; should be construed to avoid splitting families where move is in good faith (dissent) | Court must balance remedial purpose against statutory intent to provide benefits for involuntary unemployment; cannot fund voluntary career/education changes | Majority declines to expand doctrine; emphasizes purpose of Law to insure involuntary unemployment, not finance voluntary education/career change |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 378 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1977) (standard for necessitous and compelling cause; reasonable person test)
- Wheeler v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 450 A.2d 775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (articulated two-prong follow-the-spouse doctrine)
- Glen Mills Schs. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 665 A.2d 561 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (follow-the-spouse doctrine satisfies necessitous and compelling inquiry; commuting/economic hardship prong)
- Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 47 A.3d 1262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (burden on claimant to show necessitous and compelling cause; second-prong factors)
- Steck v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 467 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (Law is remedial and construed broadly)
- Top Oil Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 488 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (acceptance of a firm, definite job offer constitutes compelling cause)