UC - sexual harassment - vol. quit
Consolidated Scrap v. UCBR – November 8, 2012 – unpublished memorandum opinion
Employer argues that Claimant calculatedly walked away from her job because she disliked Employer’s chosen course of investigation and quit after Employer took prompt and effective steps to end the conduct about which she complained .
However, the HRA admitted, at the hearing and in her memorandum to Claimant, that Employer’s proposed remedy would have forced Claimant to have daily contact with the individual who had been her harasser, and was continuing to harass her. Obviously, Employer utterly failed to provide Claimant a workplace where she could work without fear of further harassment and/or retaliation.
We find that Claimant’s unwillingness to continue to work in contact with her harasser was reasonable and does not show any lack of good faith effort to preserve employment. Gavlick Personnel Services, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 706 A.2d 406, 408 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (promise of future transfer away from harasser to office which did not yet exist was not a sufficient accommodation where claimant would have to work with harasser in the interim); Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 37, 41 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (claimant had shown necessitous and compelling reason to quit her job where employer failed to transfer her to shift where she would not have contact with harasser). “[T]here is a certain level of conduct that an employee will not be required to tolerate and … the Court will not place all responsibility upon an employee to resolve his or her work dilemma.