O. Kaplan v. UCBR
713 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Dec 22, 2016Background
- Claimant Odayah Kaplan was a full-time freight operations supervisor earning $52,000/year and resigned on November 30, 2015 after disciplinary action (verbal warnings Nov. 19 and Nov. 20) and alleged targeting/harassment.
- Claimant had previously used Employer’s open-door policy and said there had been prior investigations she felt were ineffective; she also took a short medical leave around the resignation.
- The Indiana UC Service Center initially found Claimant eligible for benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(b) (voluntary leave for necessitous and compelling reasons).
- Employer appealed; a Referee reversed and denied benefits, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirmed, crediting Employer and finding Claimant not credible and her medical evidence insufficient.
- Claimant (pro se) appealed to the Commonwealth Court, principally seeking a remand to present additional evidence and arguing she had necessitous and compelling reasons (harassment/medical) to quit.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the UCBR, holding Claimant failed to show a necessitous and compelling reason and that a remand was unwarranted because the additional evidence was available at the original hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Kaplan's Argument | Employer/UCBR Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant had necessitous and compelling reason to quit under §402(b) | Kaplan: harassment, bullying, gender discrimination and medical impairment made workplace intolerable, so quitting was necessary | UCBR: testimony and medical evidence not credible or insufficient; discipline was in good faith; mere dissatisfaction is inadequate | Held: No — UCBR credibility findings supported by substantial evidence; benefits denied |
| Whether Claimant made reasonable efforts to preserve employment | Kaplan: used open-door policy and exhausted internal remedies | UCBR: claimant did not produce corroborating evidence at hearing beyond testimony | Held: UCBR found efforts insufficient to show a qualifying reason to quit |
| Whether Claimant’s medical condition justified quitting and was communicated to Employer | Kaplan: had medical evidence and doctor advised she should leave for health reasons | UCBR: did not find medical evidence credible or of sufficient magnitude; record lacked proof employer could not accommodate | Held: No — claimant failed to satisfy Karwowski factors for health-based quit |
| Whether case should be remanded for claimant to present additional evidence | Kaplan: she has compelling evidence and was denied time/opportunity at hearing; seeks remand to introduce harassment and medical proof | UCBR/majority: remand appropriate only for evidence not available at original hearing; claimant’s additional evidence was available then, so remand denied | Held: No remand — claimant sought a second chance to strengthen proofs already available |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown Twp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 40 A.3d 217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (elements for necessitous and compelling reason to quit)
- Karwowski v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 74 A.3d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (requirements when quitting is based on health reasons)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (mere dissatisfaction does not constitute necessitous and compelling reason)
- Fisher v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 696 A.2d 895 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (remand/rehearing appropriate only for newly discovered, noncumulative evidence)
- Paxos v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Frankford-Quaker Grocery), 631 A.2d 826 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (rehearing purpose is to allow newly discovered, noncumulative evidence; not to strengthen weak proofs)