Solar Innovations, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
38 A.3d 1051
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant Matthew J. Brandt quit his full‑time marketing coordinator position with Solar Innovations to accept a full‑time contract with Staffing Agency beginning November 15, 2010.
- Claimant's Staffing Agency contract lasted from mid‑November to December 10, 2010 and was described as temporary, with potential for subsequent assignments.
- Claimant resigned to gain flexibility to focus on his online education; he sought reduced hours and/or work from home to accommodate schooling.
- The Philadelphia UC Service Center awarded benefits, which Solar appealed; an evidentiary hearing was held, and a Referee reversed the initial denial of UC benefits.
- The Board found that Claimant left for a necessitous and compelling reason by accepting a firm offer of temporary employment with Staffing Agency, and thus eligible for benefits.
- The Superior Court majority reversed the Board, holding that an offer of full-time but temporary employment does not constitute a firm offer that creates a necessitous and compelling reason to quit a non‑temporary position.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does accepting a temporary staffing job constitute cause to quit a permanent job? | Brandt argues the Staffing Agency job was a firm, long‑term offer and motivated the quit for a necessitous and compelling reason. | Solar contends the temporary nature of Staffing Agency work shows no firm offer and lacks necessitous and compelling cause. | No; temporary offers do not create necessitous and compelling cause to quit a non‑temporary job. |
| Whether the mere possibility of future assignments from Staffing Agency undermines a finding of necessitous and compelling cause | Brandt relied on the possibility of future assignments and a long‑term expectation to justify quitting. | Solar argues that mere possibility of future work is insufficient; the known temporary nature defeats causation. | Merely possible future work is insufficient to establish necessitous and compelling cause. |
| What standard of review governs Board findings and whether they are supported by substantial evidence | Brandt contends the Board's findings deserve deference and Credibility determinations support his position. | Solar argues the Board erred in treating the temporary job as firm and in misapplying precedent. | Court reviews legal conclusions; substantial evidence supports the Board, but the Board’s application regarding a firm offer was incorrect; reversal of Board’s order is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brennan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 95 Pa.Cmwlth. 114, 504 A.2d 432 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1986) (firm offer can constitute necessitous and compelling cause when conditions meet)
- Antonoff v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa.Cmwlth. 239, 420 A.2d 800 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1980) (unavailability of the new position affects analysis of quit for cause)
- Empire Intimates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 655 A.2d 663, 665 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (temporary nature and personal choice do not establish necessitous and compelling cause)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (requires ordinary common sense and prudence; reasonable effort to preserve employment)
- Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 351 A.2d 698 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1976) (mere possibility of another job is insufficient without prudent action)
- Luongo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 190 A.2d 344 (Pa.Super. 1963) (seasonal positions do not establish necessitous and compelling cause)