Frimet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 398
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant began receiving regular UC benefits in May 2009 and joined the SEA Program in July 2009, receiving SEA allowances in lieu of regular UC benefits.
- Claimant started a sole proprietorship postal consulting business during SEA, which continued after SEA training began in October 2009.
- Claimant exhausted SEA allowances in November 2009 and applied for EUC benefits, while continuing to operate the Business.
- The Board reversed a referee’s award of EUC benefits, finding Claimant ineligible under Section 402(h) because he remained self-employed after SEA exhaustion.
- The court held that SEA immunity terminated after SEA benefits were exhausted, making self-employment status at EUC application disqualifying.
- The majority denied Claimant’s equitable-relief arguments and rejected a reliance on uncertain agency assurances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SEA exhaustion defeat SEA immunity for EUC eligibility under 402(h)? | Frimet contends SEA immunity persisted or should be recognized despite SEA exhaustion. | Board/Department argues SEA immunity ends when SEA benefits are exhausted, removing self-employment protection. | EUC ineligibility stands; SEA immunity ends upon SEA exhaustion. |
| Was Claimant properly classified as self-employed at EUC application? | Frimet argues Minelli/Silver-like limits apply due to sideline-like activity. | Board found ongoing self-employment, supported by control over business and client solicitation. | Substantial evidence supports self-employment at EUC application. |
| Does the sideline activity exception apply here? | Frimet argues sideline activity could allow EUC eligibility. | Kress exception does not apply since business began during SEA, not as a sideline to prior employment. | Sideline exception not satisfied; inapplicable. |
| Are there grounds for equitable relief based on agency assurances? | Frimet argues assurances to not jeopardize EUC eligibility invalidated the result. | Equitable relief not available when statute governs and assurances were mistaken. | Equity relief denied; statutory framework controls. |
| Did the Board properly address procedural aspects, including timeliness of the Department's brief? | Frimet alleges due process issues and untimely Department brief submission. | Record shows timely petition, Board granted brief and accepted timely filing. | No due process violation; Department brief properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starinieri v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 447 Pa. 256 (Pa. 1972) (self-employed by owning and controlling own business for purposes of 402(h))
- LaChance v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 987 A.2d 167 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (business activity and client solicitation show self-employment)
- Minelli v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 39 A.3d 593 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (sporadic sideline work does not trigger disqualification under 4(Z)(b)(2))
- Silver v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 34 A.3d 893 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (sideline activities not establishing independently established trade)
- Stine v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 833 A.2d 1192 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (sum of regular UC benefits and SEA allowances determines TEUC eligibility)
- Kress v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 23 A.3d 632 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (sideline activity exception to 402(h) requirements)
- Continuous Metal Tech., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 740 A.2d 1219 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (SEA designed to assist dislocated workers to become self-employed)
- Oliver v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 450 A.2d 287 (Pa.Cmwlth.1982) (due process requires informing uncounseled claimants of rights)
- Tracy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 23 A.3d 612 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (legal standard for determining self-employment status)