Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
R. Lambert v. UCBR
Citation: Not availableDocket: 482 C.D. 2018
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; September 28, 2018; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Robert Lambert, the petitioner, sought a review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's decision, which upheld a referee's ruling denying him unemployment benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. This section states that employees are ineligible for benefits if they voluntarily leave their job without a necessitous and compelling reason. Lambert had been employed full-time as a key holder from October 2010 to August 2017, earning $10.00 per hour. Although he experienced frequent anger from his employer, the Board did not accept Lambert's claim that the employer threatened him physically. Lambert quit his job shortly after discovering a co-worker earned a higher wage and felt misled by his employer. Initially, he cited health reasons for his resignation. The UC Service Center deemed him ineligible, concluding he quit solely due to dissatisfaction over wages. The referee found Lambert did not prove a necessitous and compelling cause for leaving. On appeal, it was emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish compelling reasons for quitting, which Lambert failed to do. His assertion of health issues was not supported by evidence presented during the hearing, leading to waiver of that argument on appeal. Additionally, the court noted that credibility determinations made by the Board are not subject to re-evaluation in judicial reviews. Lambert’s claims regarding health concerns were dismissed as he did not provide sufficient evidence throughout the proceedings. Claimant's assertion of a hostile work environment was undermined by the fact that he chose to continue his employment after a negative interaction with the owner. Although the owner expressed anger toward Claimant shortly before his departure, this did not occur on the final day of work. On that day, Claimant voluntarily returned his key, wished the owner well, and left his position without incident. The Board determined that the real reason for Claimant's resignation stemmed from his belief that another employee earned a higher wage and that the owner misled him about it, which Claimant confirmed during the hearing. It is established that general dissatisfaction with wages does not constitute sufficient cause for voluntary resignation, and there was no evidence that Claimant attempted to address his pay concerns prior to quitting. Thus, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review to affirm the denial of benefits was upheld.