IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Trina M. Greer-Jefferson, :

: No. 2306 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : Submitted: April 1, 2016

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: June 16, 2016

Trina M. Greer-Jefferson (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of the 

October 9, 2015 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review 

(Board), which affirmed a referee’s determination and held that Claimant was 

ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation 

Law (Law).1 We affirm.

Claimant was employed as a full-time clinical research associate by 

PRA International (Employer) from January 23, 2015, until April 23, 2015, at a 

 

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

§802(b). Section 402(b) provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any 

week in which her unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a 

necessitous and compelling nature.
2

final annual salary of $50,000, when she voluntarily quit her employment. The 

local service center found that Claimant did not show a necessitous and compelling 

reason for leaving her job and denied benefits under Section 402(b). Claimant 

appealed.

A referee held a hearing on August 24, 2015, where Claimant 

appeared and Employer did not. Claimant testified that she had weekly one-on-one 

meetings with her supervisor (Supervisor) to discuss her workload. Claimant said 

that she also had a mentor (Mentor) who was available to answer questions about 

her workload. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), August 24, 2015, at 5.

Claimant stated that in April 2015, Mentor confided in Claimant about 

personal issues while they were in the hallway at work, and Supervisor saw Mentor 

crying during this exchange. Thereafter, Supervisor met with Claimant for their 

one-on-one meeting, and Supervisor asked Claimant, “What’s the T?” Claimant

answered that she did not understand the question, and Supervisor clarified that she 

was asking about Mentor. Claimant told Supervisor that she “doesn’t get involved 

in telling other people’s business.” Id. at 6. Later, on April 22, 2015, Mentor told 

Claimant that Supervisor accused Claimant of growling at her during their one-onone meeting. Id. at 5-6.

Claimant further testified that, on April 23, 2015, she informed 

Supervisor that she was quitting and left the workplace. After she arrived home 

Claimant was contacted by Employer’s human resource department (Human 

Resources) regarding her reason for quitting. Claimant described the prior day’s 

interaction with Supervisor to Human Resources and told Human Resources that 

she quit because she “took offense” when she learned that Supervisor accused her 

of growling. Claimant said that she had not reported this issue to Human 
3

Resources prior to quitting, but informed Human Resources that she would return 

to work for Employer if she were assigned to a different supervisor. N.T., August 

24, 2015 at 7-8.

The referee determined that Claimant failed to sustain her burden of 

proving that she had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her employment, 

and affirmed the local service center’s determination that Claimant was ineligible 

for benefits under Section 402(b).

Claimant appealed to the Board, which found that Claimant and 

Supervisor had a personality conflict, and that Claimant had not credibly 

established that she had no other choice but to quit. The Board also found that 

Claimant did not make a reasonable effort to preserve the employment relationship 

because she did not discuss her problems with Employer before quitting. Thus, the 

Board concluded that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b). 

On appeal to this Court,

2 Claimant argues that the Board erred in 

concluding that Claimant did not have a necessitous and compelling reason for 

 

2 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were 

violated, whether an error of law was committed, and whether necessary findings of fact are 

supported by substantial evidence. Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,

525 A.2d 841, 843-44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). Additionally, the Board is the factfinder in 

unemployment compensation cases, empowered to determine credibility of witnesses and resolve 

conflicts in evidence. Curran v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 752 A.2d 938, 

940 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). The Board’s findings are binding on appeal if they are supported by 

substantial evidence. Mathis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 A.3d 293, 

299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation 

Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518, 521 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). We view the record in the light most 

favorable to the party prevailing before the Board and afford that party the benefit of all 

reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence to determine if substantial evidence 

exists. Big Mountain Imaging v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 A.3d 492, 

494-95 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
4

quitting, and Claimant asserts that she acted with ordinary common sense and 

made a reasonable effort to preserve the employment relationship.

Preliminarily, we note that under Section 402(b) of the Law, a person 

is ineligible for unemployment benefits if she voluntarily terminates her 

employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. The burden of 

proof rests on the claimant to demonstrate necessitous and compelling cause. 

Dopson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 983 A.2d 1282, 1284 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). Necessitous and compelling cause “results from 

circumstances which produce pressure to terminate employment that is both real 

and substantial, and which would compel a reasonable person under the 

circumstances to act in the same manner.” Philadelphia Parking Authority v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 280, 282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1995) (quoting Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 378 A.2d 

829, 832-33 (Pa. 1977)). A claimant must also make a reasonable effort to 

preserve her employment. Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2006). 

In Porco v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 828 A.2d 

426, 429-30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), the claimant quit his job due to his manager’s 

abusive conduct and profanity. However, the claimant admittedly failed to speak 

to any upper level management regarding his circumstances before quitting. We 

held that by failing to give his employer the opportunity to resolve the situation, 

the claimant failed to take reasonable steps to preserve his employment.

Accordingly, we affirmed the Board’s denial of benefits under Section 402(b).
5

Whether a person had a necessitous and compelling reason to 

voluntarily quit employment is a question of law and subject to this Court’s 

review. Middletown Township v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,

40 A.3d 217, 227 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). It is well-settled that, absent an intolerable 

work atmosphere, personality conflicts do not amount to a necessitous and 

compelling reason for leaving one’s employment. Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD P.C. 

v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 995 A.2d 1286, 1290 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2010); Lynn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 427 A.2d 

736, 737 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).

In Astolfi, the claimant quit her job because of repeated verbal abuse 

and for being “yelled” at for taking too much time with her patients by her 

employer and other employees. We found that the claimant demonstrated 

“resentment” and “personality conflicts,” but did not demonstrate an intolerable 

work environment. In reversing the Board, we held that the claimant did not 

establish a necessitous and compelling reason to quit. Astolfi, 995 A.2d at 1290.

In her brief, Claimant asserts for the first time that Supervisor told her 

that team meeting phone calls would be listened to because she did not 

communicate enough with team members, and that Supervisor began to “nitpick, 

bully and humiliate” Claimant, causing her headaches and affecting her 

concentration at work. Claimant has waived these issues because she did not raise 

them before the Board. Merida v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 

543 A.2d 593, 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988), appeal dismissed, 570 A.2d 1320 (Pa. 

1990) (an issue not specifically raised before the Board is waived).

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the Board’s 

findings are supported by substantial evidence. These findings, in turn, support the 
6

Board’s conclusion that Claimant did not demonstrate necessitous and compelling 

cause for quitting her job. Moreover, the Board’s finding that Claimant 

overreacted and did not act with ordinary common sense in quitting over 

Supervisor’s statement is supported by substantial evidence, as is the Board’s 

finding that Claimant did not make a reasonable effort to preserve the employment 

relationship before quitting. Here, the Board found Claimant did not demonstrate 

intolerable working conditions and did not make a reasonable effort to preserve her 

employment before quitting. Thus, Claimant failed to meet her burden of proof 

under Section 402(b).

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Trina M. Greer-Jefferson, :

: No. 2306 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : 

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2016, the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated October 9, 2015, is 

affirmed.

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge