Serrano v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
149 A.3d 435
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Paula A. Serrano (Claimant) worked as an operations manager for Lifeline Medical Services (Employer) from June 2012 until she quit on January 22, 2016 and sought unemployment benefits.
- Claimant earlier resigned in August 2015 because of alleged sexual harassment and racial slurs by a dispatch supervisor, then returned after Employer promised the issue would be addressed.
- Claimant says harassment continued; she complained to supervisors and ultimately quit when directed to speak directly with the dispatch supervisor during scheduling for a predicted storm.
- Employer witnesses (COO Michelle Seidel and Senior VP) testified Claimant made no further formal complaints after returning and that Claimant often said matters were "fine." Employer disputed the severity and persistence of the post-return harassment.
- A UC Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) found Claimant voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling reason under Section 402(b) and denied reconsideration; Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Referee/Board findings lacked substantial evidence | Serrano: she did report continued incidents to COO and SVP, so finding that she made no further reports is unsupported | Board: Referee credibility findings supported by testimony (COO surprised by sudden quit) | Court: Substantial evidence supports Board’s findings (gave deference to credibility determinations) |
| Whether Serrano had necessitous and compelling cause to quit (§402(b)) | Serrano: ongoing sexual harassment, racial slurs, bias based on religion/sexual orientation created intolerable environment; initial complaint in Aug. 2015 satisfied notice requirement | Board: Claimant failed to show necessitous/compelling cause because she did not meet elements (including reasonable efforts/acting with common sense) | Court: Although initial notice could suffice (employer had one chance), Serrano failed element 3 — she misrepresented the situation as "fine," so did not act with ordinary common sense; benefits denied |
| Whether Claimant was required to report harassment again after returning | Serrano: once complained in Aug. 2015 and returned, she should not have to report again; Employer: focus on lack of further reports | Court: Agrees initial complaint can satisfy notice (citing Mercy Hospital) but still finds other legal deficiencies in Serrano’s claim | Court: Initial notice sufficient legally, but Serrano’s misrepresentations undermined her claim |
| Whether Board abused discretion in denying reconsideration | Serrano: Board should have granted reconsideration | Board: denial was within discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 502 A.2d 738 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Penflex, Inc. v. Bryson, 485 A.2d 359 (Pa. 1984) (Board findings conclusive if supported by substantial evidence)
- Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board is ultimate factfinder and assesses credibility)
- DeRiggi v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 856 A.2d 253 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (Board may resolve evidentiary conflicts)
- Verizon Pa. Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Mills), 116 A.3d 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (pointing out that contrary evidence alone does not negate substantial evidence)
- Taylor v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 378 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1977) (examination of record as whole for substantial evidence)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (necessitous and compelling is a question of law)
- Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 714 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (claimant bears burden to prove necessitous and compelling reasons)
- Procito v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 945 A.2d 261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (four-part test for necessitous and compelling cause)
- Porco v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 828 A.2d 426 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (sexual harassment may constitute necessitous and compelling cause)
- Peddicord v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 647 A.2d 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (harassment can justify quitting)
- Martin v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 749 A.2d 541 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (notification to employer generally required; futility exception)
- Comitalo v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 737 A.2d 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (employer bears responsibility to eliminate workplace harassment)
- Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 654 A.2d 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (initial notice may satisfy preservation requirement; employee not always required to afford a second remedial attempt)
- Payne v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Elwyn, Inc.), 928 A.2d 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in denial of reconsideration)