S. King v. UCBR
676 C.D. 2017
Pa. Commw. Ct.Nov 22, 2017Background
- Claimant Susan D. King worked as an accounts payable specialist from 2005 until she resigned on January 11, 2017, citing stress and a hostile work environment created by her supervisor.
- Prior to resigning, Claimant received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation, was placed on 60-day probation for numerous alleged deficiencies, and testified this caused severe anxiety and depression for which her physician prescribed medication but imposed no work restrictions.
- Claimant bid on an HR assistant position and discussed issues with Employer’s CFO, but did not request a leave of absence, submit medical restrictions, request accommodations, or present other internal complaints before resigning.
- The UC Service Center and a Referee found Claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation under Section 402(b) (voluntarily leaving without necessitous and compelling cause); the Referee emphasized failure to exhaust alternatives and lack of medical advice to quit.
- The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed, discrediting Claimant’s testimony about harassment and finding no credible medical evidence showing she had no reasonable alternative but to quit.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Claimant did not meet the four-part test for necessitous and compelling cause (real pressure, reasonable-person reaction, ordinary common sense, reasonable efforts to preserve employment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s resignation due to supervisor conduct and stress constituted a necessitous and compelling reason to quit under Section 402(b) | King: sustained harassment, hostile environment, severe mental-health effects compelled her to resign | UCBR/Employer: evidence does not show intolerable or abusive conduct; dissatisfaction and low evaluation alone are insufficient | Held: No — Claimant failed to prove intolerable conditions or credible harassment; resignation not necessitous and compelling |
| Whether Claimant acted with ordinary common sense and made reasonable efforts to preserve employment | King: bid on HR position and was willing to transfer; saw no other option given health | Employer: Claimant did not seek leave, accommodation, or notify HR of problems; doctor did not advise quitting | Held: No — Claimant did not pursue available alternatives (leave, accommodation, complaint) and thus did not reasonably attempt to preserve employment |
| Whether medical evidence established inability to continue working | King: prescribed medication and reported severe symptoms to doctor | Employer: no medical restrictions or advice to stop working were provided to Employer | Held: No — medical evidence insufficient; doctor did not impose work restrictions or advise resignation |
| Admissibility/consideration of additional emails Claimant referenced on appeal | King: asserted emails would show hostile environment | Employer/Board: emails not in record; Claimant did not introduce them before the Referee | Held: Not considered — documents not part of the record and cannot be raised for first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 714 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (burden on claimant to prove necessitous and compelling cause)
- Brunswick Hotel and Conference Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (four-part test for quit for necessitous and compelling reasons)
- McKeown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 442 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (mere dissatisfaction with working conditions insufficient)
- First Federal Savings Bank v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 957 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (requirement of unjust accusations or abusive conduct to establish intolerable environment)
- Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 995 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (affirming need for extreme circumstances to justify resignation)
- Lynn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 427 A.2d 736 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (similar principle that ordinary workplace dissatisfaction does not justify voluntary quit)