T. Cunningham v. UCBR

Citation: Not availableDocket: 1090 C.D. 2019

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; February 3, 2020; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tiffany J. Cunningham petitions the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s (UCBR) July 25, 2019 decision, which upheld a Referee's ruling denying her unemployment benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. The court addresses three issues: whether Cunningham voluntarily quit her job, the exclusion of her hearsay evidence, and whether her employer, Lifestyle Support Services, Inc., engaged in unfair work practices during her termination.

Cunningham worked as a part-time day program aide from December 2017 to April 2019, earning $13 per hour for 30 hours weekly. She had a history of excessive absenteeism, leading to an employee improvement plan regarding her attendance. Despite this, her absences continued, impacting the employer's ability to provide services. On April 16, 2019, the employer proposed a more flexible group home position, which she declined, citing childcare issues despite being misinformed about the scheduling. She refused to sign a resignation notice when asked and subsequently applied for unemployment benefits.

The Altoona UC Service Center found her ineligible for benefits, a determination upheld by a Referee and later the UCBR. The court notes that the determination of whether her separation was voluntary or involuntary is a legal question, dependent on the totality of circumstances. Cunningham bears the burden of proof to show her separation was involuntary or that she had compelling reasons for her voluntary resignation. The court ultimately affirms the UCBR's decision.

Eligibility for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits requires the claimant to prove their separation from employment, which can be either voluntary or involuntary. An express resignation is not necessary for a voluntary termination; conduct equivalent to a voluntary termination suffices. Claimants who refuse a continued employment offer, while still employed, are considered to have quit, thereby falling under Section 402(b) of the Law, which denies benefits for voluntary departures without compelling cause. 

In this case, due to the claimant's excessive absenteeism, the employer offered her a position in a group home program, which she declined, believing it would involve night and weekend shifts. The claimant recounted her return to work on April 16, 2019, where she presented a medical notice, but was informed that her attendance issues did not suit the day program. After being offered a position in the group home, which she refused, she was informed that she would no longer work in the day program and was effectively terminated. In contrast, an employer representative testified that the claimant voluntarily resigned on April 16, 2019, with no intent to terminate her employment, and that the meeting's purpose was to address her absenteeism and offer her alternative employment to maintain her hours.

In Unemployment Compensation (UC) proceedings, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) serves as the ultimate fact finder, responsible for resolving conflicts in evidence and assessing witness credibility. In this case, Claimant testified that she could not work nights and weekends due to childcare obligations, while the Referee found Employer's testimony credible, indicating the position did not require such hours and offered flexibility. The UCBR adopted the Referee's findings, which established that Claimant was employed at the time Employer offered her a position in group homes, was aware that refusal would result in job loss, and ultimately refused the offer. Consequently, her actions were deemed akin to voluntary termination.

To qualify for UC benefits after quitting, a claimant must demonstrate necessitous and compelling reasons for leaving. This requires showing substantial pressure to terminate employment that would compel a reasonable person to act similarly, along with acting with common sense and making reasonable efforts to retain employment. Claimant's assertion regarding the inability to work nights and weekends was rejected as lacking credibility, and it was determined that Claimant did not prove her concerns were sufficient to justify her refusal of the job offer. Therefore, the UCBR concluded that Claimant did not have a necessitous and compelling reason to quit, leading to a proper denial of UC benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law.

Additionally, Claimant's arguments about the exclusion of an anonymous witness statement and alleged unfair work practices were not sufficiently raised in her appellate brief, leading to their waiver. Consequently, the UCBR's order was affirmed, with Claimant's application to compel denied.