K. Lerie v. UCBR
K. Lerie v. UCBR - 1663 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 28, 2017Background
- Claimant Kristine Lerie worked as a nurse’s aide from Aug. 25 to Dec. 21, 2015, and resigned after receiving a written warning following an incident on Dec. 15–16, 2015.
- On the night at issue Claimant was assigned alone to monitor 27 residents; she emailed the administrator about short-staffing and called coworkers for help.
- Employer responded to the staffing report, but Claimant continued to send critical emails and had disputes with coworkers; Employer suspended Claimant pending investigation.
- After an internal investigation Employer issued a Formal Warning, reassigned Claimant to a floor with fewer residents, and placed her on probation; Claimant signed the warning then immediately resigned, asserting she was forced to quit.
- The local service center and a referee found Claimant voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling reason and assessed a non-fault overpayment; the Board affirmed after a de novo hearing and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit under 43 P.S. § 802(b) | Lerie argues habitual short‑staffing and safety concerns for 27 residents created intolerable conditions and she was forced to resign after being reprimanded | Employer argues it remedied the staffing issue, investigated Claimant’s conduct, issued a justified warning, and offered reassignment—so the reprimand did not create an intolerable work atmosphere | Held: Claimant failed to meet burden; reprimand and dissatisfaction do not amount to necessitous and compelling cause; benefits denied |
| Whether Claimant made reasonable efforts to preserve employment | Lerie contends she reported the problem and met with HR, showing attempts to address the issue | Employer contends it addressed staffing, investigated, and offered corrective steps and reassignment—Claimant did not reasonably preserve the relationship | Held: Board credited Employer’s remediation and found Claimant did not make reasonable efforts to preserve employment |
| Whether the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence | Lerie contends she was a credible employee and the warning was improper | Employer relies on investigation and witness testimony supporting discipline and reassignment | Held: Court defers to Board as factfinder; findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether resignation after signing the warning constitutes being "forced to quit" | Lerie claims she felt forced due to being penalized for exposing safety issues | Employer points to the formal corrective steps and reassignment as non-coercive actions | Held: Feeling offended by reprimand is insufficient; not forced to quit under precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 841 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (scope of appellate review limited to constitutional error, legal error, or lack of substantial evidence)
- Curran v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 752 A.2d 938 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (Board is factfinder and resolves credibility conflicts)
- Mathis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 A.3d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Board findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence)
- Elliott Co., Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 A.3d 881 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (elements required to show necessitous and compelling cause)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (mere dissatisfaction with working conditions is not necessitous and compelling cause)
- Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 995 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (resentment of a reprimand, absent intolerable conditions, does not constitute necessitous and compelling cause)