J.J. Babirad v. UCBR, J.J. Babirad v. UCBR

Background

Claimant Joseph J. Babirad worked for Front Line Flagging from 2012 until March 7, 2016; he suffers from bipolar disorder and previously took FMLA leave.
After a verbal altercation, Employer removed Claimant from his staging assignment and reassigned him to general frack-site positions.
Employer offered Claimant a "squatter" position, described by Employer witnesses as the least stressful available site job; Claimant refused because he believed it would be too stressful and either took FMLA leave or otherwise stopped reporting.
Claimant applied for unemployment compensation, asserting he left for health reasons; a Referee and the Board found him ineligible under Section 402(b) for voluntarily quitting without a necessitous and compelling reason.
The Board concluded Employer offered a reasonable accommodation (the squatter position) and Claimant failed to make a good-faith effort to preserve employment by trying the accommodation.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings and legal conclusion that Claimant is ineligible for benefits.

Issues

Issue	Babirad's Argument	Employer/Board's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s health justified a voluntary quit under Section 402(b)	His bipolar disorder made frack-site work intolerable; he informed Employer and therefore had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit	Employer offered a less stressful position (squatter); Claimant refused to try it, so he did not preserve employment	Held: No — Claimant did not meet burden; offered accommodation was reasonable and he failed to try it
Whether Employer knew of Claimant’s medical condition	Claimed Employer was aware (prior FMLA leave)	Employer conceded awareness but insists it proposed accommodation	Held: Court accepts awareness; shifts burden to Employer to reasonably accommodate (which Employer did)
Whether Employer’s offered position was a reasonable accommodation	Claimed the squatter position would still be too stressful and thus not a valid accommodation	Employer described squatter as least stressful and available; offered alternative positions	Held: Employer’s offer was a reasonable accommodation supported by testimony
Whether Claimant made reasonable efforts to preserve employment	Claimed he attempted to work after reassignment or otherwise had a valid basis to decline	Board says he rejected the accommodation and took FMLA instead of trying the job	Held: Claimant did not make reasonable effort (failed to try the offered work); denial of benefits affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Collier Stone Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 876 A.2d 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (elements for necessitous and compelling quit)
Latzy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 487 A.2d 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (burden on claimant who voluntarily quit)
Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (four-part test for necessitous and compelling reasons)
Wheelock Hatchery, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 648 A.2d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (medical problems can constitute necessitous and compelling reasons)
Watkins v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 65 A.3d 999 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (requirements when quitting for health reasons and employer accommodation)
Lee Hosp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 637 A.2d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (employer’s duty to propose reasonable accommodations)
Genetin v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 451 A.2d 1353 (Pa. 1982) (once employee notifies employer of health problem, employer must attempt reasonable accommodation)
Sankey v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 425 A.2d 52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (claimant must attempt alternative work before quitting)
Wagner v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 407 A.2d 146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (claimant must try offered lighter work before declining)
Tapia v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 462 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (attempting alternative position essential; inability after trying could justify quitting)
Wise v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 111 A.3d 1256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (standard of review and substantial-evidence principle)