W. S. Abdullah v. UCBR (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Waliyyuddin S. Abdullah, Petitioner : : : v. : : Unemployment Compensation Board of : Review, : Respondent : BEFORE: No. 2010 C.D. 2007 Submitted: February 29, 2008 HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FLAHERTY FILED: April 2, 2008 Waliyyuddin S. Abdullah (Claimant) petitions for review from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the decision of a referee finding Claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937), as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b), due to voluntarily leaving employment with the School District of Philadelphia (Employer), without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.1 We affirm. Claimant worked for Employer as a teacher for approximately sixteen years. Claimant voluntarily retired from his position effective June 30, 2007. 1 Section 402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b) states that an employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week . . . (b) in which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature . . . . Claimant thereafter applied to the job center for benefits, which application was denied. Claimant appealed and a hearing was conducted before a referee. Based on the evidence presented, the referee determined that Claimant did not meet his burden of proving that he left his employment based on a necessitous and compelling nature and, therefore, denied Claimant benefits. Claimant appealed to the Board which made its own findings. The findings of the Board are as follows: 1. The claimant was last employed by the School District of Philadelphia as a long term substitute earning $2,296.00 bi-weekly. He was employed for 16 years, and his last day of work was May 3, 2007. 2. The claimant became frustrated with student apathy and the perceived lack of support from parents and administrators. 3. The claimant lost his desire to teach and felt that he was no longer effective in the classroom. 4. After his last day of work, the claimant was granted a leave of absence to deal with anxiety and depression. 5. On May 24, 2007, while on a leave of absence, the claimant voluntarily retired from his position effective June 30, 2007. 6. The claimant was medically cleared to return to teaching on June 19, 2007. (Board decision at p.1.) Based on the above findings, the Board determined that Claimant was medically cleared to teach in the 2007-2008 school year. However, Claimant chose to retire because he was frustrated with the attitude of students, parents and administrators and felt that he could no longer teach effectively under the 2 circumstances. The Board concluded that although Claimant may have had good personal reasons for his decision to retire, dissatisfaction with working conditions, standing alone, is not cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for quitting employment. As such, the Board denied Claimant benefits. On appeal to this court, Claimant argues that he had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for leaving his employment.2 Necessitous and compelling cause for voluntary quitting employment is cause that results from circumstances which produce pressure to terminate employment that is both real and substantial, and which compels a reasonable person, under the circumstances, to act in the same manner. PECO Energy Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 547 Pa. 739, 690 A.2d 238 (1997). A claimant who quits employment has the burden of proving the separation was for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Radnor Township School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 580 A.2d 934 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). Here, Claimant maintains that the individual reasons for his separation from work do not amount to a necessitous and compelling nature, but he argues that collectively, the reasons do amount to a necessitous and compelling nature for his separation from employment. We disagree. Claimant states that he left his employment because he was on the verge of losing his composure, was unhappy with student apathy, was dissatisfied 2 Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed and whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence. Baertl v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 627 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). 3 with the lack of parental and administrative support and had lost his desire to teach. These complaints, however, amount to a dissatisfaction with working conditions and do not amount to cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for terminating employment. Johnson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 409 A.2d 961 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). In Johnson, the claimant, a teacher at a hospital, voluntarily left his employment. The claimant set forth a list of reasons for his separation, including poor relations with staff and patients. This court concluded that the reasons presented amounted to dissatisfaction with his working conditions and denied the claimant benefits. Here, Claimant was dissatisfied with the apathy displayed by students, teachers and administrators and lost his desire to teach. Such amounts to personal dissatisfaction with working conditions, which does not amount to a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for terminating employment. Tuono v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 422 A.2d 240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed. JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge 4 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Waliyyuddin S. Abdullah, Petitioner : : : v. : : Unemployment Compensation Board of : Review, : Respondent : No. 2010 C.D. 2007 ORDER Now, April 2, 2008, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in the above-captioned matter, is affirmed. JIM FLAHERTY, Senior 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.
