Turgeon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
64 A.3d 729
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant worked for Employer from April 2004 to August 16, 2011.
- In Oct. 2010 she began medical treatment for stress/anxiety; by March 2011 she disclosed stress not work-related.
- April 2011 she was promoted to VP of lending; probation extended for poor performance.
- Aug. 5, 2011 Claimant indicated she did not want the current VP structure; offered a part-time loan officer role which she refused as a substantial change.
- Aug. 16, 2011 Claimant left on medical leave; Sept. 23, 2011 Employer terminated Claimant; she received disability benefits Aug–Nov 2011.
- Claimant applied for unemployment benefits; service center granted, referee reversed to deny under willful misconduct 402(e); UCBR later found voluntary quit under 402(b) without notice; this court vacates and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCBR improperly applied 402(b) after referee decided under 402(e) | Turgeon—referee ruled under 402(e) only; UCBR added 402(b) without notice. | Turgeon—Employer claimed discharge; UCBR followed the evidence. | Remand to consider under 402(e) or conduct new hearing on 402(b) with notice. |
| Whether UCBR violated 34 Pa.Code § 101.107 by sua sponte raising 402(b) | Claimant prejudiced by lack of notice and burden switch. | UCBR argued not raised, but record shows need for proper notice. | Vacate and remand for proper notice and hearing on applicable provision. |
| Whether claimant was prejudiced by differing burdens of proof between sections 402(e) and 402(b) | Burden should align with referee’s determined provision (402(e)). | Different sections carry different burdens; cannot decide without notice. | Remand to allow proper allocation of burden under correct provision. |
| Whether the record supports application of 402(b) given lack of prior notice | Record limited to 402(e); 402(b) not properly considered. | Record supports voluntary quit as contemplated by 402(b). | Remand for proper procedures consistent with 402(b) or 402(e). |
| Whether the UCBR’s misstatement of the employer’s letter affected outcome | Error prejudiced Claimant; proper termination status unclear. | Letter misread; actual discharge occurred per employee testimony. | Remand to correct framing of termination status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Libonate v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 426 A.2d 247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (remand for notice when new issues raised on appeal)
- Mellott v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 523 A.2d 412 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (notice requirement for issues on appeal)
- Feinberg v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 448 A.2d 664 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (vacate/remand where misaligned issues are considered)
- Sharp Equipment Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 808 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (UCBR should decide based on properly raised issue)
- Cassidy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 532 A.2d 524 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (prejudice when basis for denial differs from referee’s)