Karwowski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 367
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Claimant worked for the Employer from April 30, 2012, to May 16, 2012, and commuted about five hours daily (120 miles).
- Claimant knew of the long commute before starting and still hired for the job.
- After starting, he searched for closer housing but could not find affordable options and sought HR assistance.
- Two weeks of commuting caused severe anxiety and health issues; Claimant quit on May 16, 2012, citing a change in direction for his career.
- Unemployment benefits were denied under 402(b); a referee upheld the denial after a hearing where only Claimant testified.
- UCBR affirmed the referee; on review, the court found several findings of fact unsupported and reversed in part, determining a necessitous and compelling reason existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quitting due to the commute and health issues was necessitous and compelling. | Karwowski contends health and commute created real, substantial pressure and the presumption of suitability was rebutted by health problems and accommodations sought. | Shaw presumes job suitability once accepted; the long commute alone does not establish a necessitous and compelling reason. | Karwowski has a necessitous and compelling reason; reversed. |
| Whether UCBR properly credited/disregarded specific Findings of Fact about housing search. | Finding that housing was affordable ('at a reasonable price') and related assertions are unsupported; disregard of claimant’s testimony about real estate contacts was improper. | Employer presented no contradictory evidence; findings may be treated as factual determinations. | Findings 6, 7, and 8 were not supported and were disregarded; these issues were treated in the applicant’s favor for the necessity analysis. |
| Whether the capricious disregard standard was applied properly by the UCBR. | The UCBR failed to explain disregarding the referee’s finding about contacting realtors, violating capricious disregard standards. | Employer did not present contrary evidence; the standard may be satisfied without extensive explanation in some contexts. | UCBR erred in disregarding the referee’s finding without explanation; capricious disregard was violated. |
| Whether the presumption of suitability from Shaw could be overcome by evidence of health and accommodation efforts. | Despite acceptance, health deterioration and efforts to modify schedules and housing demonstrate unsuitability and necessitous cause. | Acceptance implies suitability; health issues post-employment do not override the initial presumption. | The presumption was rebutted; UC benefits awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 406 A.2d 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (acceptance of distant job creates presumption of suitability)
- Potente v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 488 A.2d 99 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (economic infeasibility of relocation can establish necessitous cause)
- Long v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 A.2d 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (housing/relocation conditions as basis for necessitous cause)
- Speck v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 680 A.2d 27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (burden to show necessitous and compelling nature; pressure to terminate employment)
- Treon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 455 (Pa. 1982) (capricious disregard standard requires explanation when findings are disregarded)
- Wheelock Hatchery, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 648 A.2d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (health-related modifications and feasible accommodations in necessity analysis)
- Ridley School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 637 A.2d 749 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (health as a compellable reason; proper standards for accommodation)
- Shaw v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 406 A.2d 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (acceptance of job implies suitability; rebuttable under certain conditions)
- Eby v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 629 A.2d 176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (standard for reviewing capricious disregard when only one party presents evidence)