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.
________________
