Ligonier Law v. UCBR
32 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Claimant (legal assistant) worked full-time for Employer from Nov 2015; in Jan 2016 she requested and was allowed to work part-time (15 hrs/week) due to disability and benefit eligibility concerns.
- Claimant worked the part-time schedule for seven months; Employer later concluded the part-time schedule did not allow completion of required work.
- On July 26, 2016 Employer discharged Claimant to replace her with a full-time assistant and paid her through Aug 31, 2016.
- Claimant applied for unemployment compensation (UC); a referee found she voluntarily quit and denied benefits after a hearing Claimant missed; the Board reversed and awarded benefits, finding Employer terminated the part-time arrangement and Claimant was not guilty of willful misconduct.
- Employer petitioned for review to the Commonwealth Court, arguing Claimant voluntarily quit by refusing to return to full-time work and that the Board improperly analyzed willful misconduct.
- The court reviewed whether the separation was a voluntary quit under 43 P.S. §802(b) and whether Employer met its burden under 43 P.S. §802(e) for willful misconduct, and affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant voluntarily quit under §402(b) | Claimant was discharged; she accepted part-time terms and was willing to continue part-time | Employer: Claimant voluntarily quit by refusing to resume the original full-time terms when required | Court: No quit — parties had agreed to new part-time terms and Employer ended that arrangement, so §402(b) did not bar benefits |
| Whether Employer’s action constituted discharge for willful misconduct under §402(e) | Claimant: Not applicable; no willful misconduct alleged by Employer | Employer did not claim willful misconduct at termination; urged quit theory instead | Court: Employer did not prove willful misconduct; Board properly analyzed §402(e) and benefits were not barred |
| Burden of proof allocation when separation contested | Claimant: If discharged, Employer must prove willful misconduct | Employer: Characterized separation as voluntary refusal to work full-time (placing burden on Claimant to show necessitous/compelling cause) | Court: Where conflict exists, consider both §§402(b) and (e); Claimant bears burden to prove discharge, then Employer must prove willful misconduct — here Board reasonably found discharge without misconduct |
| Whether reinstating original terms is mere reversion or termination of new agreement | Claimant: Employer agreed to new terms (part-time); reversion eliminated the agreed terms and thus was a discharge | Employer: Reinstatement of original full-time requirement was returning to initial terms; Claimant’s refusal was a quit | Held: Agreement to part-time created new terms; Employer’s elimination of that position effectively terminated employment rather than showing a voluntary quit |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown Township v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 A.3d 217 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (court examines totality of facts to determine voluntary quit versus discharge)
- Key v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 687 A.2d 409 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (claimant bears burden to prove discharge; conflicting separations analyzed under §§402(b) and (e))
- Solar Innovations, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 A.3d 1051 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (elements required to prove necessitous and compelling cause for quitting)
- Johns v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 87 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definition and burden-shifting framework for willful misconduct under §402(e))