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