S. Holmes v. UCBR
301 C.D. 2021
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 25, 2022Background
- Sandra Holmes, a 61-year-old full-time educational aide since 1991, stopped in-person work March 13, 2020 (paid through June 4); she submitted a letter on July 6, 2020 stating her resignation/retirement effective June 7, 2020.
- Holmes applied for unemployment compensation (UC) on July 12, 2020; she told the service center Employer changed her duties to work with learning-support/special-needs students and she feared COVID-19 risk to her elderly, cardiac-condition father.
- The UC Service Center initially found Holmes eligible (Aug. 26, 2020); Employer appealed and a referee reversed (Sept. 30, 2020), finding Holmes quit without a necessitous and compelling reason because she never raised concerns with Employer and made no effort to preserve employment.
- The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review adopted the referee’s decision and affirmed on Dec. 23, 2020.
- Holmes’ attempts to appeal to this Court were delayed: she emailed the Board (dated Jan. 21, 2021) and filed a pro se communication to the Court on Feb. 16, 2021; counsel later filed a petition on her behalf (Mar. 16, 2021).
- The Commonwealth Court held Holmes’ petition for review untimely, concluding her misreading of appeal instructions was negligent and did not justify nunc pro tunc relief; the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Holmes' Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal to this Court | She timely attempted appeal but misread appeal instructions attached to the referee’s decision and emailed the Board instead of filing here; she wasn’t told of the mistake until Feb. 2021 | Appeal was untimely; misreading the notice is negligent and does not warrant nunc pro tunc relief; no allegation of fraud or administrative breakdown | Dismissed for untimeliness; misreading is negligent and not a basis for nunc pro tunc relief; Court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Holmes had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit | She claimed COVID-19 risk to her elderly, heart-condition father and an involuntary change in duties made continued work impossible | Holmes did not present these concerns to her supervisor or make efforts to preserve employment; thus she failed to meet burden for necessitous and compelling reason | Court did not reach merits due to untimeliness, but referee/Board had found no necessitous and compelling reason due to Holmes’ failure to seek employer accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (misreading a notice is negligent and does not justify relief)
- DiBello v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 197 A.3d 819 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (misreading a determination is negligent and does not warrant nunc pro tunc relief)
- Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (nunc pro tunc relief allowed only for fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent third-party causes)
- Iannotta v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 312 A.2d 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional; courts cannot extend appeal periods absent fraud or administrative breakdown)
- DiJohn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 687 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (appeals mistakenly filed in a non-tribunal cannot be transferred)
- H.D. v. Department of Public Welfare, 751 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (failure to timely appeal is jurisdictional; nunc pro tunc relief limited to extraordinary circumstances)