IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert P. Saghafi, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 975 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: December 9, 2016

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE SIMPSON1 FILED: February 22, 2018

Robert P. Saghafi (Claimant), representing himself, petitions for review 

from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board). The 

Board found Claimant ineligible for all but one week of unemployment 

compensation (UC) benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law2(UC 

Law) after he voluntarily left his employment to start a business. Upon review, we 

affirm.

I. Background

Claimant was laid off by a previous employer in April 2015. Certified 

Record (C.R.), Item 5. As a result, Claimant began having financial difficulties. 

 

1 This case was reassigned to the author on January 18, 2018.

2 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. 

§§751-919.10.
2

C.R., Item 17; Ref. Hr’g, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 4/5/16, at 8. To generate cash 

flow, Claimant accepted a position with Mastercard Inc. (Employer) in May 2015 at 

a substantially lower salary than he earned in his previous job. C.R., Items 5, 17;

N.T. at 8. The lower salary did not allow Claimant to solve his financial problems, 

which were exacerbated by the need to pay his daughter’s college tuition. C.R., 

Items 2, 17. In order to increase his income, Claimant decided to resign his position 

with Employer and restart a consulting company he previously operated 

successfully. C.R., Item 17; N.T. at 6.

Claimant gave Employer notice on June 16, 2015, that he was resigning 

effective June 26, 2015. C.R., Item 2. Employer, however, did not allow Claimant 

to work through his notice period. Id. Therefore, June 16 was Claimant’s last day 

of employment. Nevertheless, Employer paid Claimant his salary through June 26. 

Id.; N.T. at 6.

The week after Claimant left his job with Employer, his consulting 

business was back in operation. N.T. at 7. After restarting his business, he obtained 

at least two lucrative consulting contracts, each of which paid him substantially more 

than the amount of his salary with Employer. C.R., Item 17.

Claimant applied for UC benefits. He asserted that although he 

resigned his job with Employer voluntarily, his financial difficulties constituted a 

necessitous and compelling reason for leaving his employment.
3

A referee found Claimant ineligible for UC benefits under Section 

402(b) of the UC Law, 43 P.S. §802(b). Claimant appealed the decision. The Board 

modified the referee’s decision, finding Claimant was not ineligible for UC benefits 

under Section 402(b) for the week ending June 27. Otherwise, the Board affirmed 

the referee’s decision. Claimant then sought review in this Court.

II. Issues

On appeal,3 Claimant argues he met his burden under Section 402(b) of 

establishing a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily leaving his 

employment. He also asserts the Board failed to properly consider his evidence of 

financial difficulties beyond his daughter’s tuition cost. In addition, Claimant argues 

the Board acted improperly in granting him UC benefits only for the week ending 

June 27, 2015, and denying benefits thereafter, without explaining the reason for 

treating the two time periods differently.

III. Discussion

A. Necessitous and Compelling Reason for Voluntary Resignation

Section 402(b) of the UC Law provides that a claimant is ineligible for 

UC benefits for any week in which “his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving 

work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature ....” 43 P.S. §802(b). A 

claimant asserting necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily resigning has 

the burden to establish such cause in order to be eligible for UC benefits. Kelly v. 

 

3 Our review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact were supported 

by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether constitutional rights 

were violated. Johns v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 87 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal

denied, 97 A.3d 746 (Pa. 2014).
4

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 172 A.3d 718 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). To meet 

his burden, the claimant must prove he acted with ordinary common sense and made 

reasonable efforts to preserve the employment relationship. Id. Whether the

claimant had necessitous and compelling cause to resign from employment is a 

question of law subject to plenary review on appeal. Id.

Claimant insists that his need to increase his earnings to meet his 

financial obligations constituted a necessitous and compelling reason to resign his 

job with Employer. This Court disagrees. 

Claimant asserts a sudden layoff by his previous employer, eBay 

Enterprise, caused him serious financial pressures and mental strain. He claims he 

accepted a position with Employer at a lower salary, knowing it would not solve his 

financial problems in the long term, in an effort to mitigate the damage to his 

finances arising from the layoff. He argues he acted reasonably in deciding to resign 

and restart his consulting practice in order to generate enough cash flow to meet his 

financial obligations.

Claimant cites three decisions of this Court for the proposition that 

domestic circumstances can constitute necessitous and compelling cause for 

voluntarily leaving employment. The cited decisions are inapposite. 

In Green v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 529 A.2d 

597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), the claimant left employment in Illinois to move to 

Pennsylvania because his wife was in poor mental health and threatened to leave 
5

him and the couple’s children if he did not relocate the family to Pennsylvania. 

Notably, this Court found the proffered reason for leaving employment was not

necessitous and compelling.

In Kleban v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 459 A.2d 

53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), the claimant left her employment to relocate after her 

husband accepted a transfer. Because the nature of the husband’s job required him 

to accept frequent transfers, this Court again found relocation was not a necessitous 

and compelling reason for the claimant to leave her employment.

In Steck v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 467 A.2d 

1378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982), the claimant’s husband suffered from serious medical 

conditions, and his doctor advised he would not survive another winter in 

Pennsylvania. The claimant submitted in evidence an express, documented 

physician’s order that her husband relocate to a warm dry climate immediately. As 

there was no such climate anywhere near the claimant’s job in Pennsylvania, she had 

a necessitous and compelling reason to resign her employment and relocate to 

Arizona with her husband and children. Here, Claimant alleges no circumstance

analogous to that in Steck. 

Claimant cites no authority, and this Court is aware of none, holding 

that the need to increase one’s earnings is a necessitous and compelling reason for 

leaving employment. Moreover, starting a business is not a necessitous and 

compelling reason to leave employment. See Lawless v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 
6

of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1541 C.D. 2010, filed March 18, 2011), 2011 Pa. 

Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 234 (unreported).4

Rather, Claimant’s choice to leave employment and start a business was

a personal preference. Personal preference is not a necessitous and compelling 

reason to leave employment. Procito v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 945 

A.2d 261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (en banc). Therefore, the Board correctly determined 

Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits.

Notably, in leaving employment to start a business, Claimant became 

self-employed. He testified he restarted his former consulting business, which he 

operates as a statutory S-corporation, immediately upon leaving his employment. 

Therefore, Claimant was also ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(h) of the 

UC Law, 43 P.S §802(h), because he was self-employed. See Owoc v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review 809 A.2d 441 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (owner of 

consulting business was self-employed and ineligible for UC benefits); Fellabaum 

v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2319 C.D. 2009, filed 

August 25, 2010), 2010 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 579 (unreported) (principal of 

S-corporation was self-employed and ineligible for UC benefits).

This Court may affirm on different grounds from those on which the 

Board relied. Procito. Here, we disagree with Claimant’s argument that he had a 

necessitous and compelling reason to leave his employment. However, even if this 

 

4 We cite Lawless v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 

1541 C.D. 2010, filed March 18, 2011), 2011 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 234 (unreported) as 

persuasive precedent. 210 Pa. Code §69.414(a).
7

Court agreed with that argument, we would still be constrained to affirm the Board’s 

finding of ineligibility, because Claimant was self-employed. 

Claimant’s efforts to meet his financial responsibilities and send his 

daughter to college are laudable. Nevertheless, they do not entitle him to UC 

benefits in the circumstances of this case.

B. Evidence of Claimant’s Financial Situation

Next, Claimant asserts that the Board improperly focused on 

Claimant’s need to pay his daughter’s college tuition, rather than his substantial loss 

of income generally, as the primary reason for his resignation from employment. 

This argument lacks merit.

As the ultimate finder of fact, the Board was empowered to weigh the 

evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, and accept or reject any evidence. 

Owoc. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that 

Claimant was motivated to resign by the need to pay his daughter’s college tuition. 

In his initial claim questionnaire, Claimant stated he resigned because of the need to 

pay his bills and his daughter’s tuition. Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 2. In 

correspondence regarding the hearing, Claimant attached a copy of his daughter’s 

acceptance letter, and explained that his daughter’s recent acceptance to college, 

added to his previous financial difficulties, caused him to resign his position with 

Employer. C.R., Item Nos. 8, 17. At the hearing, Claimant testified he resigned 

because he was falling behind on his financial obligations, and once his daughter 

was accepted to college, he felt he needed to restart his consulting business in order 
8

to fix his financial situation. Referee’s Hr’g, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 4/5/16, at 

7-9. Claimant explained that added to his other mounting financial obligations, his 

daughter’s tuition was “the icing on the cake.” N.T. at 11.

Moreover, nothing in the Board’s reasoning suggests it would have 

decided Claimant’s appeal differently had it relied more heavily on Claimant’s 

broader financial difficulties. As discussed above, even crediting Claimant’s 

evidence concerning his overall financial plight,5 he did not have necessitous and 

compelling cause to leave his employment.

C. UC Benefits for Week Ending June 27, 2015

Finally, Claimant contends the Board erred by denying UC benefits 

beginning with the week ending July 4, 2015, after granting benefits for the week 

ending June 27, 2015. This argument is without merit.

Claimant argues the Board failed to explain why it treated the two 

periods differently. Claimant assumes the Board granted benefits for the week 

ending June 27, 2015, because it found he had a necessitous and compelling reason 

for his resignation in relation to that week. Based on that erroneous assumption, 

Claimant reasons that the Board was required to make the same finding for 

subsequent weeks.

However, the Board properly treated the two periods differently. The 

issue before the Board was whether Claimant had a necessitous and compelling 

 

5 The Board points out that Claimant attached information to his brief that is not part of the 

certified record. This Court has not considered any non-record evidence in its analysis of this case.
9

reason under Section 402(b) of the UC Law for voluntarily leaving employment. 

Claimant gave Employer notice on June 16 that he was resigning effective June 26. 

Employer then escorted him from the building, preventing him from working until 

the effective date of his resignation. “When an employee tenders his resignation 

with a specific effective date, and the employer involuntarily terminates the 

employee before such effective date, the separation is treated as a discharge under 

Section 402(e) of the Law[,] [43 P.S. §802(e),] from the date of the involuntary 

discharge until the resignation effective date.” Wert v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 

of Review, 41 A.3d 937, 939 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Claimant was not ineligible under 

Section 402(b)

6

for the week ending June 27, 2015, because he did not resign 

voluntarily in relation to that week.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing discussion, this Court affirms the Board’s order 

finding Claimant ineligible for UC benefits beginning with the week ending July 4, 

2015.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

 

6 The issue of Claimant’s eligibility for UC benefits for the week ending June 27, 2015 is 

not directly before this Court. However, to the extent Claimant argues his receipt of UC benefits 

for the week ending June 27, 2015, automatically entitled him to continue collecting benefits 

thereafter, we note Claimant was actually ineligible for UC benefits for the week ending June 27, 

2015. Claimant testified he restarted his consulting business immediately upon leaving his 

employment. Thus, as discussed above, he was self-employed and ineligible for UC benefits under 

Section 402(h) of the UC Law, 43 P.S. §802(h). Moreover, Claimant candidly admitted Employer 

paid him his salary for the week ending June 27, 2015. Claimant’s receipt of UC benefits for that 

week in addition to his salary was a windfall. It did not entitle him to continue collecting UC 

benefits for subsequent weeks.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert P. Saghafi, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 975 C.D. 2016

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2018, the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge