Whitlatch v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
61 A.3d 397
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Whitlatch, a former estimator/project manager for Paul Davis Restoration of Western Pennsylvania, worked October 2007–January 9, 2012.
- In December 2011, Employer changed Whitlatch's pay from commission-only to a guaranteed $385 weekly salary plus 5% commission.
- Whitlatch worked one week under the new pay structure in 2012, earned only the $385 weekly salary, and then voluntarily quit.
- Whitlatch claimed the change substantially reduced his earnings and sought unemployment benefits; the Department denied benefits, the Referee granted, and the Board reversed and denied benefits on different grounds.
- The court affirms the Board’s denial of benefits, holding that the changes in pay did not present a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntary quit, based on the evidence showing likely similar earnings under the new structure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pay-structure change constitutes necessitous and compelling reason to quit | Whitlatch argues the change reduced earnings and justified quitting | Board found the change did not create necessitous and compelling cause | No; not a necessitous and compelling reason. |
| Whether the Board’s earnings calculations were supported by substantial evidence | Whitlatch contends Board miscalculated 2011 pay/sales and relied on faulty figures | Board credibly evaluated pay structure and earnings | Calculations were not dispositive; substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial. |
| Whether belated Form W-2 evidence could be considered | Whitlatch submitted W-2 as evidence of higher earnings | Board properly did not consider it as it was not presented to the Referee | Irrelevant to change outcome; even if considered, result would be unchanged. |
| What is the proper standard of review for the Board’s decision | Not applicable; focuses on Board’s factual findings | Review limited to law, constitutional rights, and substantial evidence | Court reviews for whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings; here it does. |
| Whether other factors (demotion, hiring relatives, vacation changes) support necessitous termination | Claimant argues these changes show a significant downgrade | Record does not establish a substantial adverse impact justifying quitting | Not a sufficient necessitous and compelling reason to quit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown Township v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 A.3d 217 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (necessitous and compelling standard application)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (substantial unilateral pay changes may justify quitting)
- Morysville Body Works, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 430 A.2d 376 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1981) (employer pay/condition changes evaluated for necessity)
- McCarthy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 829 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (substantiality of employment changes evaluated)
- Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (credibility and weight of evidence in UCBR determinations)
- Frazier v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 833 A.2d 1181 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (scope of review under Administrative Agency Law)