UC - voluntary quit - discharge not imminent

Line v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – November 25, 2015 – unreported* memorandum decision

 

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/731CD15_11-25-15.pdf?cb=1

 

Benefits denied since claimant quit without discharge being imminent, only a future possibility if he did not perform his job properly.

 

Where a claimant resigns in order to avoid an imminent discharge, the Board may properly treat the claimant’s separation from employment as a discharge and analyze the claimant’s eligibility for unemployment benefits under section 402(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. §802(e). Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 648 A.2d 124, 126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

 

However, a claimant who resigns under circumstances indicating only a possibility of a discharge is considered to have voluntarily resigned. Id. Whether a claimant was discharged or voluntarily resigned is a question of law to be determined based on the facts found by the Board. Key v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 687 A.2d 409, 412 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). The claimant bears the burden of proving that the separation was a discharge and not a voluntary resignation. Id.

In this case, the facts as found by the Board are similar to those before the Court in Fishel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 674 A.2d 770 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), and Rizzitano v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 377 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977).

________________

*An unreported case may not be cited “binding precedent” but can be cited “for its persuasive value. . . .”  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a) and Pa. R.A.P.  3716 [45 Pa.B. 3975; Saturday, July 25, 2015]

If the case is old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar)

 

 

admin. law - findings and reasons

State Police v. Brandon – Cmwlth. Court – November 24, 2015 – unreported* memorandum decision

 

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/841CD15_11-24-15.pdf?cb=1

 

The court vacated an ALJ decision concerning respondent’s right to possess a firearm, because the decision did not contain proper findings and reasons, as required by the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. 507, which states that  “All adjudications of a Commonwealth agency shall be in writing, shall contain findings and the reasons for the adjudication, and shall be served upon all parties or their counsel personally, or by mail.” 2 Pa. C.S. §507. 

 

Section 507 of the AAL requires that adjudications contain findings of fact that are “sufficiently specific to enable [a reviewing] court … to pass upon  questions of law.” In re: Petition for Formation of Independent Sch. Dist., 962 A.2d 24, 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (quoting Henderson v. Office of Budget, 537 A.2d 85, 86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)). Further, adjudications stating only that a party “failed to present evidence” to meet its burden do not comply with Section 507 of the AAL.

 

Where a decision contains no specific findings regarding the evidence, but rather merely set forth conclusory findings, a remand is necessary for adjudication that complies with 2 Pa. C.S. §507).  Independent Sch. Dist., supra.; see also Turner v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 462 A.2d 306 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (where commission’s decision merely concluded that police officer’s dismissal was for just cause without any findings as to which testimony was found credible, which charges against the officer were substantiated by the evidence, or what facts constituted just cause for dismissal from employment, remand was necessary for findings of fact consistent with Section 555 of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §555), which is similar to 2 Pa. C.S. 507.

 

 

__________________

*An unreported case may not be cited “binding precedent” but can be cited “for its persuasive value. . . .”  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a) and Pa. R.A.P.  3716 [45 Pa.B. 3975; Saturday, July 25, 2015]

If the case is old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar)