Earnest v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
30 A.3d 1249
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant Earnest worked full-time for Muncy Homes and Sears Roebuck & Co. beginning in 2002 and 2008 respectively, concurrently by 2008.
- In January 2010, Earnest suffered a hand injury at Muncy and began collecting workers’ compensation while remaining employed at Sears and attending Lycoming College.
- Earnest returned to Muncy on February 8, 2010, but was informed no work was available and the company could not provide a predictable schedule.
- Earnest quit Muncy on February 9, 2010 due to lack of work and to pursue schooling; Sears then reduced hours and eventually terminated him on March 13, 2010.
- The UC Service Center denied benefits: under 402(b) for voluntary quit without necessitous and compelling cause, and under 401(f) for not earning six times his benefit rate at Sears after leaving Muncy.
- The Board reversed the Referee, finding no necessitous and compelling reason under 402(b) and applying 401(f) to bar benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 401(f) bar benefits when claimant works concurrently at two jobs? | Stauffer supports concurrency exception; Luongo should be overruled. | Luongo should control; 401(f) applies to all cases where two jobs exist. | Stauffer controls; 401(f) does not bar eligibility for concurrent employment. |
| Was Earnest's separation from Muncy for necessitous and compelling reasons under 402(b)? | Lack of work and on-demand schedule constitute necessitous and compelling cause. | Board findings show no such cause; attendance at school not enough. | Yes; lack of work and inability to schedule justified quitting; eligible under 402(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Stauffer v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Rev., 410 A.2d 972 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (concurrent vs. successive employment distinctions under 401(f))
- Luongo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 190 A.2d 344 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1963) (straightforward reading of 401(f); education-related quit punished)
- Staub v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 673 A.2d 434 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (necessitous and compelling cause supports quitting for lack of work)
- Keisling v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 181 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1962) (education to support oneself not necessitous and compelling)
- Evans, Portnoy & Quinn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 665 A.2d 548 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (limits on subsidies to students pursuing education via work)