J.M. Malarik v. UCBR, 227 C.D. 2016

James Malarik worked seasonally for the Pittsburgh Pirates and was laid off in October 2015; he filed for unemployment compensation (UC).
The Department issued a financial determination finding him ineligible under the current Section 401(a) base-year earnings test; his base-year total wages were $7,452, with $4,339 in the highest quarter and $3,122 in the other three quarters.
The 2012 statutory amendment raised the required portion of wages earned outside the highest quarter from 20% to 49.5%; the amendment became effective January 1, 2013.
Malarik appealed, arguing he had no notice of the 2012 amendment and that applying it violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
A referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review found the wage facts as above and concluded Malarik failed the 49.5% test; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether applying the 2012 amendment to Malarik, who had no actual notice of the change, violated due process	Malarik: lack of personal notice deprived him of due process and prevented him from taking steps (e.g., working overtime) to meet old eligibility thresholds	Board/State: Publication of the statute suffices; claimant received procedural process (notice of determination and hearing); no constitutional bar to applying the amended law	Court: No due process violation; statutory publication provides adequate notice and procedural protections were afforded; substantive challenge fails under rational-basis review
Whether the 49.5% threshold is constitutional as applied	Implicit: applying higher threshold here is unfair to seasonal worker	State: The amendment is rationally related to legitimate state objectives of ensuring attachment to workforce and accurate eligibility determinations	Court: Threshold previously upheld; amendment is rationally related to valid state objectives and survives substantive due process review

Pagliei v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 37 A.3d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (claimant bears burden to prove financial eligibility)
Devine v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 101 A.3d 1235 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (upholding the 2012 amendment’s percentage requirement under rational-basis review)
McFadden v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 806 A.2d 955 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (social and economic legislation reviewed under rational relation to state objective)
Heckert v. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, 476 A.2d 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (publication of law constitutes sufficient notice of legislative changes)
Grimaud v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 638 A.2d 299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (no requirement of personal notice to all potentially affected citizens)
Lewis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 454 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (no fundamental right to unemployment compensation)
Wallace v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 393 A.2d 43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (same)
State Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 113 A.3d 9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (procedural due process satisfied when notice and opportunity to be heard are provided)
Martin v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 466 A.2d 107 (Pa. 1983) (context for considering attachment to workforce in UC eligibility)