Rodriguez
v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – September 7, 2017 (2-1 decision)
Held: A desire to maintain the family unit, alone,
is insufficient to establish a necessary and compelling reason to leave
employment. Schecter v. UCBR, 491 A.2d 938, 941 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Claimant
and children moved from Pa. to Florida to join her husband, who had been
awarded a full-scholarship to a theological school, conditioned on his move to
Florida with his entire family. Husband
testified that “there was a good prospect of full-time employment as a minister
following the completion of the ministerial program” and that he would receive
a bachelor’s degree when he finished. Husband was “ able to maintain some level of
employment as a truck driver in Pa. but was unable to obtain a permanent
position. His job possibilities were
limited by a past criminal conviction. His
relocation to Florida was not done in order to accept an offer of employment in
a highly-specialized field with a limited job market or because his job was
going to be eliminated. He had no firm
job offer contingent on his completing the schooling in Florida.
“Under
the “follow-the-spouse” doctrine, a claimant’s burden is two-fold. Wheeler v. UCBR,
450 A.2d 775, 778 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982). First, the claimant must establish that
the move created insurmountable commuting problems or that maintaining two
residences would result in economic hardship. Glen Mills, 665 A.2d at 564.
Under the second inquiry, the claimant must also demonstrate that circumstances
beyond the control of the claimant’s spouse caused the necessity to relocate,
the decision was reasonable and made in good faith, and that the relocation was
not a result of the spouse’s personal preferences. Pennsylvania Gaming Control
Bd., 47 A.3d at 1267; Id.
The
court found that claimant satisfied the first prong of this test but not the
second. There was an “insurmountable
commuting problem for Claimant with regard to her Pennsylvania job. See Glen
Mills, 665 A.2d at 564 (holding that it is obviously unreasonable to commute
five hours round trip each day). Accordingly, Claimant sustained her burden of
demonstrating an insurmountable commuting problem and, therefore, satisfied the
first prong of the “follow-the-spouse” doctrine. In order to satisfy the second
prong of the analysis, a claimant must demonstrate that circumstances beyond
her spouse’s control caused the necessity to relocate, that the decision was
reasonable and made in good faith, and that the relocation was not a result of
the spouse’s personal preferences. We note that the desire to maintain the
family unit, alone, is insufficient to establish a necessary and compelling
reason to leave employment. Schecter v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 491
A.2d 938, 941 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). On the other hand, a claimant may meet her
burden by demonstrating that the relocating spouse’s position has been
eliminated. Other examples of evidence offered to meet this burden have
included a limited job market due to the highly specialized nature of a
spouse’s occupation, 7 a spouse’s military orders,8 a spouse’s medical needs, 9
or evidence that a spouse’s job will be eliminated.10
7
Glen Mills, 665 A.2d at 564. 8 Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd., 47 A.3d at
1270-71. 9 Steck v. UCBR, 467 A.2d 1378, 1380 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). 10 See
Mechanicsburg Area Sch. Dist. v. UCBR, 551 A.2d 401, 402-03 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)
The
“objective of the Law . . . is to ensure that employees who become unemployed
involuntarily are provided with some semblance of economic security.” Hamot
Medical Center v. UCBR, 645 A.2d 466, 469 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Thus, it is not
the purpose of unemployment compensation to be a vehicle through which a family
may finance a voluntary change of career or a desire for a spouse to obtain
additional education. If husband had had a firm offer of employment when he
completed the schooling, our decision may have been different.”
Dissent
We
have long held that the Unemployment Compensation Law“was intended to be
remedial legislation which is to be liberally and broadly construed…” Steck v.
UCBR, 467 A.2d 1378, 1380 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (citing Kleban v. UCBR, 459 A.2d
53, 55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)).
In
the “follow the spouse” context, we have recognized the unique nature of the
family unit in situations where compelling reasons motivated the initial move
in the first place:
While preservation of the family unit
does not, in and of itself, give rise to necessitous and compelling reason
under Section 402(b), [] we are not
indifferent to its social desirability. Moreover, in the absence of statutory
language mandating such application, we are disinclined to interpret the Law in
a way which tends to be disruptive to family unity. In this case, we
believe it is sufficient that the claimant has demonstrated a good faith desire
to keep her family together, that her interest in preserving the family unit
was irreconcilable with maintenance of her job due to the distance between
her's [sic] and her husband's places of employment, and that her husband's
decision to relocate was motivated by compelling factors. Stevens v. UCBR, 473
A.2d 254, 257 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (emphasis added).
In
the present case, the Majority has shown no such “disinclin[ation],” despite no
legislative direction otherwise. Coupled with the “compelling factors” before
us (equally as compelling as those in Stevens), the Majority’s interpretation
and application of the “follow the spouse” doctrine is erroneous and, for this
family, quite harmful. 2 As there is no indication that this is consistent with
legislative intent, I am compelled to dissent.
