T.M. Parrillo v. UCBR
268 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Parrillo worked remotely from Florida as a full‑time legal secretary/office manager for the Law Office of Mark Zlock from August 2012 until June 17, 2015.
- On June 17, 2015, Employer texted Parrillo instructing her not to access business communication systems after suspecting unauthorized access; he did not state she was terminated.
- Parrillo ceased work, boxed up office items, and later told Employer she interpreted the instruction as a firing; she then applied for unemployment benefits claiming a discharge.
- The Department initially found Parrillo eligible, but Employer appealed; at hearing Employer produced texts and testified he did not fire her and continued to ask work‑related questions afterward.
- The Referee found Parrillo not credible, concluded she voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling reason, and the Board affirmed; the Commonwealth Court upheld the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Parrillo's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the separation was a discharge or a voluntary quit | Parrillo: Employer’s message constructively discharged her; she reasonably interpreted the instruction as firing | Employer: He instructed her to stop accessing systems pending investigation and did not terminate her; he continued to contact her about work | Court: Separation was a voluntary quit; text lacked immediacy/finality of a discharge and record supports Employer’s account |
| Whether Parrillo had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit | Parrillo: She faced unexplained exclusion from systems making performance impossible, producing compelling pressure to quit | Employer: No such exigent circumstances; instruction was temporary and investigatory | Court: Parrillo failed to prove the legal standard for necessitous and compelling cause |
| Whether Employer’s late submission of texts prejudiced Parrillo | Parrillo: Late evidence prejudiced and undermined her credibility | Employer: Texts corroborate his testimony and were timely submitted five days before hearing per notice | Court: No prejudice; Board discretion to admit and find credibility accordingly |
| Whether Board’s credibility findings are reviewable | Parrillo: Inconsistent Employer stories made his testimony unreliable | Employer: Testimony was consistent; Board is factfinder | Court: Board’s credibility determinations are binding and supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 921 A.2d 23 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (court reviews whether separation is quit or discharge based on totality of record)
- Fishel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 674 A.2d 770 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employer language must have immediacy and finality to constitute a discharge)
- Mathis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 A.3d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (claimant bears burden to show necessitous and compelling cause to quit)
- Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa.) (Board is ultimate finder of fact and credibility determinations are binding)
- Green Tree School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 982 A.2d 573 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (burden on claimant to prove necessitous and compelling reason)
- Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 714 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (necessitous and compelling standard explained)
- Craighead-Jenkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 796 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (quitting requires showing real and substantial pressure would compel a reasonable person to quit)