Risse v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 35 A.3d 79

Claimant William Risse was employed full-time by Johnson Controls as an account executive at $68,000/year until his termination in October 2009.
Since 1986, Claimant engaged in a sideline business (Risse Marketing) offering writing, photography, consulting, and script-writing, operated from home.
After termination, he applied for unemployment benefits and was initially granted eligibility; in October 2010 benefits were suspended due to self-employment.
Claimant provided consulting services (including for a Senate campaign) from July to November 2010; income from Risse Marketing rose to $8,000 in 2010 from $3,750 in 2009.
The Referee ruled Claimant was ineligible under Section 402(h) because his sideline activity had substantially changed due to the income increase.
The Board affirmed; Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court arguing there was no substantial change in sideline activity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a substantial change in sideline activity post-termination	Risse argues no substantial change; activity remained essentially the same with no effort to expand.	Board argues increased income shows transition toward full-time activity, constituting a substantial change.	No substantial change; Board erred
Whether income increase alone proves a substantial change under 402(h)	Income rise is not alone determinative of a transition to full-time work.	Significant income increase demonstrates evolving from sideline to primary activity.	Income increase, without other factors, does not prove substantial change
Whether claimant remained available for full-time employment during the sideline activity	Claimant continued to be available and did not change his marketing approach; he worked only when called.	Board focused on change in sideline as enough to disqualify.	Availability remained intact; not dispositive for disqualification

Kress v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 23 A.3d 632 (Pa. Cmwlth.2011) (defines four-part test for 402(h) substantial change; burden on claimant)
Higgins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 405 A.2d 1024 (Pa.Cmwlth.1979) (substantial change when hours increased markedly)
Quinn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 446 A.2d 714 (Pa.Cmwlth.1982) (substantial change based on hours/workload shift)
Dausch v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 725 A.2d 230 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (clarifies framework for 402(h) analysis)
O'Hara v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 648 A.2d 1311 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (predecessor discussion of non-disqualifying self-employment)
Myers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 533 Pa. 373 (Pa.1993) (scope of review and constitutional considerations in 402(h))