Stugart v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 111
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Claimant Michael Stugart worked as a full‑time head painter for Williamsport Steel Container Co. from June 2011 until July 20, 2012, when he was sent home and did not return.
- Employer documents and Claimant’s own questionnaires and testimony describe Claimant repeatedly asserting that U.S. government "neural satellite" monitoring was affecting production and torturing employees.
- Referee admitted the claim file (including Employer’s questionnaire) after asking Claimant about objections; Claimant initially said some statements were inaccurate but ultimately allowed the documents to be entered.
- Referee found Claimant was sent home for talking about those theories, was told he could return but Employer would not tolerate the talk, and Claimant did not return; Referee concluded he voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling reason.
- UCBR affirmed; Claimant appealed, arguing the decision rested entirely on objected‑to and uncorroborated hearsay and that he was effectively discharged rather than having voluntarily quit.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer/UCBR Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether decision rested entirely on hearsay | Stugart: Employer questionnaire was hearsay, objected to, and not corroborated, so it cannot support the Board's finding | UCBR: Documents were entered after Claimant declined legal objection; Claimant’s testimony and his own written statements corroborate facts | Held: Admission exception and Claimant's own statements/testimony provided admissible/corroborating evidence; findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Claimant was discharged or voluntarily quit | Stugart: Supervisor allegedly told him not to return unless he "completely changed" his beliefs — a constructive discharge | UCBR: Employer offered a choice (stop talking at work or not return); language lacked immediacy/finality of firing | Held: Court treated employer's instruction as a choice, not an immediate discharge; Claimant voluntarily quit |
| Whether Claimant showed necessitous and compelling cause to quit | Stugart: Being required to refrain from expressing core beliefs at work was impossible for him and therefore compelled leaving | UCBR: Claimant made no showing of real and substantial pressure, reasonable person standard, or efforts to preserve employment | Held: Claimant failed to prove necessitous and compelling cause |
| Referee's duty to assist pro se claimant when documents disputed | Stugart: Referee should have probed which statements were false and provided more assistance to develop record | UCBR: Referee reasonably asked about objections, claimant ultimately permitted documents; not required to advocate or probe every evidentiary detail | Held: Court found the Referee’s handling adequate; Claimant’s acquiescence limited the record to his own testimony/documents |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 625 A.2d 622 (Pa. 1993) (hearsay objected to cannot support Board finding)
- Walker v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 367 A.2d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (uncorroborated hearsay inadmissible; admitted hearsay without objection may be given probative effect if corroborated)
- Evans v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 484 A.2d 822 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (party admissions are exceptions to hearsay rule)
- Monaco v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 565 A.2d 127 (Pa. 1989) (employer ultimatum lacking immediacy/finality does not constitute discharge)
- Mathis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 64 A.3d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (employee given a real choice to comply with employer requirement or leave — voluntary quit)