R.A. Deleon v. UCBR
R.A. Deleon v. UCBR - 1913 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- Claimant Reinaldo A. DeLeon worked for Solid Waste Services d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons as a full‑time picker from March 2014 until he quit on August 15, 2016.
- Claimant left work after becoming upset by a comment made by a refuse truck driver (whom Claimant contends was a supervisor); he punched out and went home that day.
- Claimant did not notify the general manager or operations manager about the comment before leaving; his only complaint to management occurred 3–4 days after he had already left employment.
- Employer testified it would have worked with Claimant had it known about his ongoing issues.
- The referee denied unemployment compensation (UC) under 43 P.S. § 802(b); the Board affirmed, adopting the referee’s findings, and Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s resignation was for a "necessitous and compelling" reason because of a hostile work environment/racial remark | DeLeon contends the comment created a hostile, racially discriminatory environment that justified quitting | Employer contends Claimant never informed management so it had no chance to address the problem | Court held Claimant failed to prove a necessitous and compelling reason because he did not give employer notice or an opportunity to remedy the situation |
| Whether Claimant made a reasonable effort to preserve employment before quitting | DeLeon argues the severity of the conduct relieved him of any obligation to seek management intervention | Employer argues Claimant did not exhaust alternatives and thus failed to preserve employment | Court held Claimant failed the burden to show he made reasonable efforts to preserve employment (did not inform upper management prior to quitting) |
Key Cases Cited
- Salamak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 497 A.2d 951 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (board’s factual findings are binding on appeal)
- Havrilchak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 133 A.3d 800 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (necessitous and compelling question is one of law)
- Solar Innovations, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 38 A.3d 1051 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (four‑part test for necessitous and compelling reason)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conf. Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (standard for necessitous and compelling reasons)
- Porco v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 828 A.2d 426 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (hostile work environment claim requires notice to management to allow remedy)
- Colduvell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 408 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (claimant bears burden to prove reasonable effort to preserve employment)