M. Nanni v. UCBR
M. Nanni v. UCBR - 449 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- Nanni was laid off December 5, 2014, told he would be rehired June 1, 2015, but employer informed him in late May 2015 the business was sold and work was no longer available.
- Nanni filed for unemployment in November 2015; Department’s wage report showed base-year quarterly wages of $6,705 (Q3 2014), $6,302 (Q4 2014), and $0 for Q1–Q2 2015, totaling $13,007.
- A referee hearing was held; employer did not appear. Nanni did not dispute the 2014 wage amounts at the hearing and acknowledged having no wages in the first half of 2015.
- The Board found Nanni’s base-year wages totaled $13,007 and concluded he failed the statutory financial-eligibility threshold (needed $13,193 under the two-step down rule), falling $186 short.
- Nanni appealed, arguing the Board failed to establish accuracy of reported wages, that reliance on an expected rehire should excuse the shortfall, and that a hearing notice named the wrong employer. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Nanni's Argument | Board/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nanni’s base-year wages were accurately established | Wage records may be wrong; prior Department error undermines current report | Wage figures were admitted by Nanni at hearing and unchallenged; no contrary evidence | Court held wages were established; Nanni admitted the amounts and submitted no proof of error |
| Who bears burden to prove wage accuracy | Board must prove reported wages are correct | Claimant bears burden to prove financial eligibility, including production and persuasion | Court held claimant has burden; he failed to produce evidence of additional wages or errors |
| Whether reliance on an expected rehire excuses failing the earnings threshold | Employer’s late notice deprived him of chance to earn qualifying wages; equity should allow exception | Eligibility is statutory and must be applied as written; misleading conduct does not create exception | Court refused equitable exception; strict statutory criteria apply despite harsh result |
| Whether misnaming employer on hearing notice affected determination | Misidentified employer might have prevented wage challenge | Attribution of wages to employer is not controlling; amounts per quarter control eligibility | Court found misidentification irrelevant; claimant did not show additional earnings or attribution error |
Key Cases Cited
- Pagliei v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 37 A.3d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (claimant bears burden to prove eligibility)
- Kirkwood v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 525 A.2d 841 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (burden of production and persuasion explained)
- Alla v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 119 A.3d 434 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (sections 401 and 404 both required for eligibility)
- Dorn v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 866 A.2d 497 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (use of Section 404 table for eligibility)
- Briglia v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 452 A.2d 900 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (equitable considerations do not override clear statute)
- Mitcheltree v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 635 A.2d 701 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employer misinformation does not create an exception)
- Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 530 A.2d 129 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (strict application of wage thresholds even for de minimis shortfalls)
- Grossinger v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 485 A.2d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (same)
- Devine v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 101 A.3d 1235 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (scope of appellate review of Board findings)
- Pa. Turnpike Comm’n v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 991 A.2d 971 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (relevance of hearing notice to employer’s ability to challenge wage info)