Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
47 A.3d 1262
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant Liane Wyatte quit her job as an administrative assistant on August 6, 2010 to relocate to Louisiana to be with her Coast Guard spouse.
- Claimant and her spouse, Zachary Wyatte, began dating in 2008, married on May 29, 2010, and the spouse was relocated to Louisiana by the Coast Guard.
- Claimant moved to Louisiana shortly after quitting; she had previously lived with her parents in Pennsylvania and sought employment in Louisiana.
- The Erie UC Service Center initially found Claimant ineligible under 402(b) for voluntary termination without necessitous and compelling cause; the Referee affirmed.
- The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversed, finding Claimant eligible under 402(b) based on insurmountable commuting distance and inability to maintain two residences.
- Employer challenges the Board’s application of the follow-the-spouse doctrine and its factual determinations; this Court reviews issues of law governing necessitous and compelling causes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does follow-the-spouse apply here? | Wyatte argues doctrine applies; Schechter allows following a spouse even if relocation preceded marriage. | Wyatte contends doctrine does not apply when the relocation occurred before marriage and not due to spouse’s current relocation. | Yes; doctrine applies; timing and marriage status do not bar application under Schechter. |
| Was relocation for necessitous and compelling reasons, not mere personal preference? | Relocation was necessitated by insurmountable commuting distance and economic hardship with two residences. | Relocation could be personal preference; evidence does not show necessitous and compelling cause. | Relocation satisfies necessitous and compelling standards; Board properly found a good-faith, reasonable relocation. |
| Are the Board’s findings of insurmountable commuting distance and dual-residence hardship supported by substantial evidence? | Evidence shows insurmountable commuting distance and inability to maintain two residences. | Argues findings may be flawed or not adequately supported by record. | Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings and conclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schechter v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 491 A.2d 938 (Pa.Cmwlth.1985) (follow-the-spouse may apply where relocation is necessitated to be with a spouse)
- Sturpe v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 823 A.2d 239 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (follow-the-spouse principles recognized in marital relocation cases)
- Schechter v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 491 A.2d 938 (Pa.Cmwlth.1985) (analysis of reasonableness and good faith in following a spouse)
- Glen Mills Schs. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 665 A.2d 561 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (illustrates follow-the-spouse where spouse’s job causes relocation with two residences)
- Kleban v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 73 Pa.Cmwlth. 540 (Pa.Cmwlth.1983) (necessitous and compelling reasons may arise from family obligations)
- Green v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 108 Pa.Cmwlth. 216 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987) (family obligations may constitute necessitous and compelling cause)