J. C. Langley v. UCBR (Majority Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jonathan C. Langley, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : : : No. 1015 C.D. 2007 Submitted: December 21, 2007 HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge HONORABLE RENÃ E COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: February 7, 2008 Jonathan C. Langley (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed a Referee s decision to deny benefits on the basis that Claimant had quit his job without necessitous and compelling reasons, thus disqualifying him under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 On appeal, Claimant asserts that he 1 802(b). Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit his employment with Ikon Office Solutions (Employer) because of family matters. The Unemployment Compensation Service Center (Service Center) denied Claimant benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Law, finding that he did not meet his burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting. (Service Center Decision, Item 4.) Claimant appealed. After a hearing on March 8, 2007, the Referee made findings of fact and issued a decision affirming the Service Center s determination. (Referee s Decision, Item 9.) Claimant then filed a timely appeal to the Board, which ultimately affirmed the Referee s decision and found Claimant ineligible for benefits. The Board, taking no additional testimony, made the following findings of fact: 1. The claimant was last employed as an office specialist by Ikon Office Solutions from December 2005, and his last day of work was December 11, 2006. 2. The claimant called off sick after his last day of work. 3. The claimant s site manager called the claimant to find out when he would be able to return to work. However, the claimant did not return the site manager s telephone calls. 4. Subsequently, the site manager was told by other employees at his location that claimant had left notes on their chairs indicating that he would not be returning to work. 5. The claimant voluntarily quit his employment. (Board Decision, Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶¶ 1-5, Item 12.) Based on these findings, the Board concluded that Claimant failed to sustain his burden of proving that he had necessitous and compelling justification for terminating his employment with Employer. In reaching this conclusion, the Board noted that Claimant did not appear 2 at the Referee s hearing2 and that its decision was, therefore, based upon the credible testimony of Employer s witness and the competent evidence of record. The Board also noted that Claimant s actions constituted sufficient evidence of his intention to quit. Further, the Board noted that there was no evidence of record indicating why Claimant quit or showing that Claimant made a good faith effort to maintain the employment relationship. This appeal ensued.3 Initially, we note the Board s argument that Claimant s brief is insufficient to meet the appellate review requirements. Relying on Rule 2119(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a), the Board argues that Claimant failed to make a clear legal argument and failed to cite to pertinent authorities in support of his position. Rule 2119(a) does require that an appellate brief include a coherent and organized argument with citation to supporting authority.4 Although we agree with 2 It appears from the record that Claimant was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, and Claimant offers no argument to the contrary. 3 When reviewing an order from the Board, this Court s review is limited to a determination of whether the Board committed an error of law, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Nolan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 797 A.2d 1042, 1045 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind, without weighing the evidence or substituting its judgment for that of the fact finder, might accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached. See Brown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 854 A.2d 626, 628 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). 4 Rule 2119(a) provides that [t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued . . . followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a). 3 the Board that Claimant s argument is difficult to understand and fails to cite to supporting legal authority, we can discern from his brief his argument that the Board erred in denying him benefits because he quit his employment for a necessitous and compelling reason relating to his family.5 (Claimant s Br. at 4.) Accordingly, we will address the merits of the appeal. As previously stated above, Claimant s sole argument on appeal is that he had necessitous and compelling reason to quit his employment because of family matters. In a voluntary quit case, in order for a claimant to obtain unemployment benefits, he must show that the quit was for necessitous and compelling cause. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 355, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (1977). Necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily quitting is cause that results from circumstances which produce pressure to terminate employment that is both real and substantial, and which would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner. Id. at 358-59, 378 A.2d at 832-33. 5 We can discern Claimant s argument of necessitous and compelling cause from page four of his brief, in which he states: The Act of April 23, 1942, P.L. 60, § 402 (Pennsylvania) had authorized benefits when an employee left his work for good cause, but the Act of August 24, 1953, P.L. 1397, § 402 (Pennsylvania) had precluded marital, filial, and domestic circumstances and obligations from being good cause. The court determined that when the legislature in the Act of March 30, 1955, P.L. 6, § 5 (Pennsylvania) removed such specific exception, the legislature intended those circumstances and obligations again to be good cause. (Claimant s Br. at 4.) 4 In an unemployment compensation case, the Board is the ultimate fact finder and is empowered to make credibility determinations. Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 509 Pa. 267, 272, 501 A.2d 1383, 1386 (1985). In making those determinations, the Board may accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Grief v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 450 A.2d 229, 230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982). We have previously held that, in certain circumstances, family matters may be cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for quitting. Draper v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 718 A.2d 383, 385 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (stating that caring for an ill family member can constitute a necessitous and compelling nature, but must be determined based on the facts of each individual case); Kieley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 471 A.2d 1345, 1347 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (stating that where domestic obligations cause one to leave his job, the quit can be considered necessitous and compelling in certain extenuating circumstances; however, being uncomfortable away from home and performance of household responsibilities were not sufficient evidence); Robinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 532 A.2d 952, 953-54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (stating that claimant must show attempts to preserve employment, such as asking employer to accommodate the situation or by seeking alternative means of care); Renosky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 434 A.2d 887, 887 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (holding that claimant s assertions of quitting to assist his ill parents was not sufficient because he failed to show exploration of alternative solutions). 5 Although family matters may provide good cause for quitting one s employment, here there is no record evidence establishing that Claimant had family reasons that would have compelled him to quit his employment. While Claimant did submit a document to the Board indicating that he quit due to his mother s health, such document is considered extra record evidence and cannot be taken into consideration.6 Therefore, we conclude that the Board did not err in determining that Claimant failed to sustain his burden of proving that he had necessitous and compelling justification for terminating his employment with Employer. Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed. ______________________________ RENÃ E COHN JUBELIRER, Judge 6 The Board refused to consider such evidence because Claimant failed to preserve the argument at the hearing before the Referee. The Board stated that it cannot consider information or documents that were not part of the record below. Therefore, the Board could not consider the documents sent by the claimant to the Board for consideration or the information in them that was not presented below. (Board Decision at 2, Item 12.) 6 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jonathan C. Langley, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : No. 1015 C.D. 2007 ORDER NOW, February 7, 2008, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed. ______________________________ RENÃ E COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.