Staffmore, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
92 A.3d 844
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Claimant (Jesse Frasch) worked as a Therapeutic Support Staff (TSS) through staffing agency Staffmore beginning November 2010 under an independent contractor agreement; he worked one Staffmore case ~7 hours/week and also taught for local schools.
- Claimant was trained/certified as a TSS by Staffmore and followed treatment plans developed by a behavioral specialist (not a Staffmore employee); DVCC set hours/location for the Staffmore assignment.
- DVCC ended the case in April 2012; Claimant emailed Staffmore on April 24, 2012 saying he would not accept further cases because he was teaching and would be with his son in the summer.
- Claimant applied for unemployment compensation (UC); the Service Center initially found him self-employed and ineligible under 43 P.S. § 802(h); a Referee reversed and awarded benefits; the UCBR reversed, then reconsidered and ultimately reinstated the benefits award relying on this Court’s unreported Haines decision.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether Claimant was an employee or an independent contractor under 43 P.S. § 753(i)(2)(B) (focus on whether Claimant was "customarily engaged in an independently-established trade, occupation, profession or business").
- The Court found Staffmore failed to meet its burden to show Claimant was customarily engaged in an independent business (facts similar to Haines) but vacated the UCBR decision and remanded to address whether Claimant voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling reason under 43 P.S. § 802(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Staffmore) | Defendant's Argument (Claimant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant was a self-employed independent contractor under 43 P.S. § 753(i)(2)(B) | Claimant signed an independent contractor agreement, could accept/reject cases, and thus was self-employed | Claimant was not customarily engaged in an independent business: trained by Staffmore, did not hold himself out to others for TSS work, and had no record of providing TSS services outside Staffmore | Court held Claimant was not an independent contractor; Staffmore failed to show he was customarily engaged in an independently-established trade/business (affirming Haines rationale) |
| Whether Claimant voluntarily left employment without a necessitous and compelling reason (eligibility under § 802(b)) | Staffmore argued Claimant quit (email) and thus may be ineligible | Claimant contended circumstances justified ending assignments (teaching, childcare during summer) | Court vacated UCBR decision and remanded for hearing on whether Claimant’s departure was without a necessitous and compelling reason (issue not previously decided by UCBR) |
Key Cases Cited
- Viktor v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 586 Pa. 196, 892 A.2d 781 (Pa. 2006) (determination of employee/independent contractor is legal question decided on case-specific facts)
- Minelli v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 39 A.3d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (employer must supply evidence showing claimant engaged in an independent business beyond contract language)
- Jia v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 55 A.3d 545 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (contractual freedom to work for others does not, by itself, prove customary independent business activity)
- Sharp Equipment Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 808 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (single-employer dependence and work conditions can undermine independent-contractor status)
- Renne v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 499 Pa. 299, 453 A.2d 318 (Pa. 1982) (UC Law is remedial and construed liberally to provide broad benefits to involuntarily unemployed)