Forbes Road SD v. UCBR
Forbes Road SD v. UCBR - 1814 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Claimant Glenda S. Akers worked full‑time as a paraprofessional for Forbes Road School District from August 2015 through June 1, 2016 and earned $10.15/hour.
- At hire Claimant completed paperwork and received employer‑paid family (spousal) health coverage for the 2015–2016 year; Employer later said this was a mistake and only the employee benefit should have been provided.
- Employer agreed to continue spousal coverage through the 2015–2016 year but the School Board voted not to continue paying spousal benefits for the 2016–2017 year.
- Employer later informed Claimant the monthly cost to add her spouse would be between $947.16 and $1,342.54—an amount large relative to her wages.
- Claimant resigned because of the loss of paid spousal coverage, applied for unemployment benefits, and the Department/Referee found her ineligible under 43 P.S. § 802(b); the Board reversed, finding a necessitous and compelling reason to quit.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board, holding the loss of paid spousal benefits was a substantial unilateral change that compelled a reasonable person to resign and that Claimant made reasonable efforts to preserve employment.
Issues
| Issue | Forbes Road School District's Argument | Akers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quitting due to loss of paid spousal health benefits is a "necessitous and compelling" reason under §402(b) | The spousal benefit was a clerical mistake; correcting the error is not a substantial change in employment terms | Employer’s removal of paid spousal coverage was a substantial change that created real, substantial pressure to quit | Held: Loss of paid spousal benefits was a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting; claimant eligible for benefits |
| Whether the employer’s correction of the mistaken benefit is a substantial, unilateral change | Not substantial—merely rectifying an administrative error | The change substantially altered compensation package given the high monthly cost relative to wage | Held: Change was substantial given its real impact on Claimant’s employment conditions |
| Whether Claimant failed to reasonably attempt to preserve her employment | Claimant decided to resign regardless and did not exhaust alternatives | Claimant inquired of Superintendent, was informed of Board discussions and vote, and sought confirmation before resigning | Held: Claimant made reasonable efforts to preserve employment (communications and awaiting Board decision) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 A.3d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (burden on claimant to prove necessitous and compelling cause)
- Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 714 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (necessitous and compelling standard requires real, substantial pressure and reasonable efforts to preserve employment)
- Middletown Twp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 A.3d 217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (substantial unilateral change in terms of employment can justify quitting)
- McCarthy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 829 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (substantiality measured by impact on employee)
- Green Tree School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 982 A.2d 573 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (claimant must show reasonable effort to preserve employment)