Wednesday, January 30, 2013

UC - religious institution - "employment"

Livny v. UCBR – January 29, 2013


Judy Livny (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the June 12, 2012, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming the decision of a referee to deny Claimant unemployment compensation benefits. The UCBR found that Claimant was ineligible for benefits because Claimant’s work for Jewish Day School of the Lehigh Valley (Employer) did not constitute “employment” under section 4(l)(4)(8)(a)(ii) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.

The referee concluded that Employer is a religious educational institution and, therefore, Claimant’s work for Employer was not “employment” under section 4(l)(4)(8)(a)(ii) of the Law.
We begin by noting that the second prong of section 4(l)(4)(8)(a)(ii), requiring the organization to be operated or controlled by a church, was declared unconstitutional in Christian School Association of Greater Harrisburg v. Department of Labor and Industry, 423 A.2d 1340, 1347 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (en banc). As a result, we must limit our inquiry under section 4(l)(4)(8)(a)(ii) to the first prong, i.e., whether Employer is operated primarily for religious purposes. See Imani Christian Academy v. UCBR, 42 A.3d 1171, 1174-75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). We conclude that it is.

We conclude that the record contains substantial evidence to support the UCBR’s conclusion that Employer operates primarily for religious purposes under section 4(l)(4)(8)(a)(ii) of the Law. See, e.g., Christian School Association, 423 A.2d at 1345 (concluding that certain religion-affiliated schools were operated primarily for religious purposes where, “in addition to offering actual religious instruction and prayer, each school attempts to emphasize its respective religious principles on a daily basis in its presentation of even secular subjects”).

Friday, January 25, 2013

US Constitution - equal protection - right to travel


Connelly v. Steel Valley School District – 3d Circuit – January 25, 2013


No violation of equal protection or privileges and immunities clause (right to travel) for limiting credit for prior teaching experience, when setting salary, to teaching experience within Pennsylvania.  Rational basis standard applied.

 

__._,_.___

Thursday, January 24, 2013

UC - willful misconduct - truckdriver - accident v. violation of ER rule


Dixon v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – January 24, 2013 – unreported memorandum decision


 Truckdriver denied UC not for having an accident but for violating a work rule to walk around the truck before backing it up.  See  Heitczman v. UCBR, 638 A.2d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

 _____________________

 
The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing Judicial Opinions.

 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

child abuse - spousal privilege does not apply

Commonwealth v. Hunter – Superior Court – January 15, 2013


Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) recognizes that, in order to further important public policy, privileged communications may need to give way to the prosecution of child abuse. Under the CPSL, confidential communications between spouses are admissible in any proceedings regarding child abuse or the cause of child abuse. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6381(c).  See also, B.K. v. Department of Public Welfare, 36 A.3d 649 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). 

Friday, January 11, 2013

public housing - applicant - no right to appeal denial - no "adjudication"


R.                            McKinley v. Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh - 211 C.D. 2012
Po
Commonwealth Court
Op
Colins, Senior Judge
Da
12/21/2012
Op
Reported
Op:
Majority Opinion

 Following its opinion in Cope v. Bethlehem Housing Authority, 514 A.2d 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), the court held that that an applicant for public housing does not have a property interest, and that the denial of an application is not an "adjudication" from which an appeal can be taken.

PUC - manuf. home communities - foreign load - accounts not individually metered


1-A Realty v. PA PUC - 885 C.D. 2012
Posted by:
Commonwealth Court
Opinion by:
Covey, J.
Date:
01/04/2013
Opinion status:
Reported
Opinion type:
Majority Opinion
PUC Code, 66 Pa. C.S. 1529.1(b) did not permit manuf. home community owner to have street lights on the accounts of various residents, even if the owner compensated them for the extra costs.  Sec. 1529.1(b) sayd that "if the mobile home park. . .contains one or more dwelling units not individually mtered, an affected public utility shall. . . .list the account for the premises in questin in the name of the owner [of the park]." 

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

UC - voluntary layoff proviso

Diehl v. UCBR – Pa. Supreme Court – December 28, 2012




We granted review to consider whether the “voluntary layoff option” proviso (“VLO Proviso”) contained in Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (“UC Law”), 43 P.S. § 802(b),1 permits employees to receive unemployment compensation benefits when they accept an early retirement plan offered pursuant to an employer-initiated workforce reduction.

Upon application of our rules of statutory construction, we reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court and conclude that the UC Law does not preclude application of the VLO Proviso to early retirement plans offered pursuant to employer-initiated workforce reductions.