Morris v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

PER CURIAM

OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Claimant, Sandra Ann Morris, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the referee's decision denying her unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), which provides that an employee is ineligible for benefits during any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature." We affirm.

The facts as found by the referee, which the Board incorporated and adopted in their entirety, are as follows. Claimant worked full-time as a production coordinator for Griff and Associates LP (Employer) from August 2010 to February 2013, and earned $17.50 per hour. Due to a personality conflict with her immediate supervisor, Claimant suffered stress, which left her crying for much of the evening after she returned home from work and unable to sleep. After an earlier automobile accident, Claimant's physician prescribed her Xanax for certain psychological impairments that resulted from the accident. With the permission of her physician, Claimant increased the dosage in an effort to cope with the stress at work. Although the increased dosage helped to some degree, Claimant quit her job as a result of "[t]he stress of everything." Referee's May 6, 2013 Decision at 2. In addition, despite the fact that she had a personal relationship with one of the owners of Griff and Associates LP, Claimant failed to complain to him about the problems that she was having with her immediate supervisor before quitting. Continuing work was available to Claimant.

Claimant applied for benefits, which the Erie UC Service Center denied. At a May 2013 hearing, Claimant testified and also presented the testimony of her mother and daughter. Employer presented two witnesses: Controller Becky Miller and Production Manager Fred Ciotti. The referee affirmed the Service Center's ineligibility determination, concluding that "because Claimant did not give Employer at least some chance to remedy whatever problem may have existed, she cannot be eligible for benefits." Id. The Board affirmed and Claimant's timely petition for review followed.

A claimant in a voluntary quit case bears the burden of proving that his or her separation from employment was involuntary. Bell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 921 A.2d 23, 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). An employee has voluntarily quit for unemployment compensation benefit purposes when he or she resigns, leaves, or quits without action by the employer. Lee v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 33 A.3d 717, 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). When determining whether an employee quit voluntarily, this Court considers the totality of circumstances. Id. A determination of whether an employee has quit voluntarily or has been discharged is a question of law, subject to plenary review by this Court. Id. An employee who voluntarily quit bears the burden of proving necessitous and compelling cause for leaving his or her job. Brunswick Hotel & Conf. Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). In order to show such cause, the employee must establish, inter alia, that he or she made a reasonable effort to preserve his or her employment. Id.

Claimant first argues that the Board erred in finding that she had a personality conflict with her supervisor, instead maintaining that she had a nervous breakdown. Although this argument on its face is a bit confusing, what Claimant seems to be asserting is that her situation with her supervisor went beyond a personality conflict and, at least in part, caused her to suffer a nervous breakdown. In her petition for review, she stated as follows: "I do not understand how a referee can determine this was a 'Personality Conflict' when a doctor has called it a Nervous Breakdown." September 11, 2013 Petition for Review at 2. She also stated that "I was an employee at Griff for two and a half years and was unfairly treated and harassed the entire time and to the point of a nervous breakdown." Id.

Notwithstanding Claimant's reluctance to accept a characterization of her relationship with her supervisor as a personality conflict, the record belies her contention that one did not exist. Claimant testified that her supervisor was partial to another female employee and afforded that employee special treatment. May 1, 2013 Hearing, Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 12. In addition, Claimant's daughter, who also worked for Employer at one time, testified that there was a lot of animosity in the air, that her mother would complain to her about the problems that she was experiencing with her supervisor and that he told the daughter directly that he did not like her mother. Id. at 21-22.

Moreover, to the extent that Claimant seems to be arguing that the Board erred in finding a personality conflict and not a nervous breakdown, we note that she did not present competent testimony that she suffered a nervous breakdown. While it is true that what appears to be a doctor's note referencing Claimant's stress and depression is part of the record, the note is dated over a month after her last day of work. It is well established that, in order to establish health as a compelling reason for a voluntary quit, a claimant, inter alia, must present competent evidence that an adequate health reason existed to justify the voluntary quit and proof that she informed the employer of the health problem. Ridley Sch. Dist. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 637 A.2d 749, 752 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to support a fact-finding that Claimant had a personality conflict with her immediate supervisor and insufficient evidence that she had necessitous and compelling cause for her quit in the form of a nervous breakdown.

Claimant next argues that the Board erred in finding that she failed to make efforts to preserve her employment, asserting that she eventually met with the owner and explained the issues that she was having with her immediate supervisor. Claimant, however, conceded in her testimony that she did not go to human resources with the problems regarding her supervisor. May 1, 2013 Hearing, N.T. at 11-12. In addition, although she testified regarding her belief that complaining would not have made a difference, the Board rejected that testimony as not credible. Further, although her last day was a Tuesday and she called into work sometime thereafter before the weekend, Claimant acknowledged that she did not leave a message. Id. at 17. Finally, with regard to the conversation that she eventually had with the owner that Friday, three days after she had quit, Claimant admitted that she had a hard time speaking with him and felt unable to speak with him again until Monday. Id. In that regard, the referee, whose findings the Board adopted in their entirety, found as follows:

Claimant was not able to adequately explain her choice to not go to Employer for help in dealing with the problem. She had a personal relationship with at least one of the owners; that is the individual she talked to after she made the decision to quit.

Where, as here, the Board resolved any credibility conflicts in favor of Employer, we are bound to view the evidence, and every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, in the light most favorable to Employer as the prevailing party. Penn Hills Sch. Dist. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 496 Pa. 620, 630, 437 A.2d 1213, 1218 (1981). It was reasonable from the evidence for the Board to conclude that Claimant did not make a reasonable effort to preserve her employment and that any conversation that she had with the owner was too little and too late. We conclude, therefore, that the Board did not err in determining that Claimant voluntarily quit her job and that she failed to establish necessitous and compelling grounds for doing so. Accordingly, we affirm. PER CURIAM ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 2014, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby AFFIRMED.