IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bonnie R. Mallit, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 205 C.D. 2019

Respondent : Submitted: July 5, 2019

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: August 8, 2019

Bonnie R. Mallit (Claimant) petitions this Court, pro se, for review of 

the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) December 19, 

2018 order affirming the Referee’s decision denying her UC benefits under Section 

402(b) of the UC Law (Law).1 Claimant essentially presents one issue for this 

Court’s review: whether the UCBR erred by determining that Claimant did not have a 

necessitous and compelling reason for leaving her job.2 After review, we affirm.

The facts of this case are undisputed. Claimant was employed as a 

medical assistant for Douglas D. Fletcher, M.D. (Employer/Dr. Fletcher) from 

 

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

802(b) (relating to voluntary separation without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature). 

2 Claimant presented two issues in her “Statement of the Questions Involved:” (1) whether 

Claimant’s employer addressed her concerns; and (2) whether Claimant presented sufficient 

evidence that she had a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily separating from her 

employment. Claimant Br. at 6. These issues are subsumed in the Court’s rephrasing of the issue 

and will be addressed therein. 
2

August 6, 2006 to July 30, 2018.3 Claimant’s voluntary resignation stemmed from an 

incident that occurred on July 30, 2018 at approximately 1:00 p.m., when Employer’s 

office manager Joyce Maiure (Maiure) informed Claimant that Maiure inadvertently 

reported to Employer’s payroll company that Claimant worked from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 

p.m. on July 13, 2018, rather than from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. which Claimant 

actually worked.4 Claimant became upset when Maiure asked Claimant how she 

preferred Employer to correct the four-hour overpayment, either by taking the pay 

from Claimant’s vacation leave or from her next paycheck. 

Later that same day, Claimant asked Maiure if she could take time off 

without pay from October 2 to October 17, 2018, when Dr. Fletcher planned to be out 

of the office. Maiure told Claimant she would have to exhaust her vacation days

before she could take unpaid time off, but they could discuss it as the time got closer. 

Then, at 4:15 p.m. that day, despite that Claimant was scheduled to work until 5:00 

p.m., Claimant removed her personal belongings, loudly announced that she was 

“done,” and left. Certified Record (C.R.) Item 12, Notes of Testimony, October 23, 

2018 (N.T.) at 7; see also N.T. at 9. 

Thereafter, Claimant applied for UC benefits claiming she suffered 

stress due to a hostile work environment in which unwritten vacation policies 

changed without warning. See C.R. Item 2, Internet Initial Claims; see also C.R. Item 

5, Claimant Questionnaire. On August 31, 2018, the Indiana UC Service Center (UC 

Service Center) concluded that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under Section 

402(b) of the Law because she “has not shown a necessitous and compelling reason 

 

3 Claimant worked for Employer part-time from August 6, 2006, and began working fulltime in approximately December 2006. See Certified Record Item 12, Notes of Testimony, October 

23, 2018 (N.T.) at 4-5.

Claimant and an office manager were Dr. Fletcher’s only employees. 

4 Claimant had Employer’s permission to leave at 12:30 p.m. on July 13, 2018. See N.T. at 

17.
3

for quitting.” C.R. Item 8, UC Service Center Determination at 1. Claimant 

appealed, and a Referee hearing was held on October 23, 2018. On October 25, 

2018, the Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s determination because Claimant 

did not establish a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting. Claimant appealed 

to the UCBR. On December 19, 2018, the UCBR adopted the Referee’s findings and 

conclusions, and affirmed the Referee’s decision. Claimant appealed to this Court.5

Claimant argues that the UCBR erred by concluding she failed to prove 

she had a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily quitting her job. 

Claimant specifically contends that Employer never resolved the communication 

concerns she raised in June 2018. 

Section 402(b) of the Law states that an employee shall be ineligible for 

compensation for any week “[i]n which h[er] unemployment is due to voluntarily 

leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature[.]” 43 P.S. § 

802(b). This Court has explained: 

Whether a claimant had cause of a necessitous and 

compelling nature for leaving work is a question of law 

subject to this Court’s review. A claimant who voluntarily 

quits h[er] employment bears the burden of proving that 

necessitous and compelling reasons motivated that decision. 

In order to establish cause of a necessitous and compelling

nature, a claimant must establish that (1) circumstances 

existed that produced real and substantial pressure to 

terminate employment, (2) like circumstances would 

compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner, (3) 

the claimant acted with ordinary common sense, and (4) the 

claimant made a reasonable effort to preserve her 

employment.

 

5

“Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by 

substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704.” Turgeon v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 64 A.3d 729, 731 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
4

Middletown Twp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 40 A.3d 217, 227-28 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2012) (citations omitted). 

Pennsylvania law is clear that “[m]ere dissatisfaction with one’s working 

conditions does not constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for 

terminating one’s employment.” Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). 

Moreover, “[p]ersonality conflicts, absent an intolerable work atmosphere, do not 

amount to a necessitous and compelling cause for leaving one’s employment.” Wert 

v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 41 A.3d 937, 940 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). This 

Court has ruled that resentment of reprimand and personality conflicts may make a 

work environment uncomfortable, but not necessarily intolerable. Ann Kearney 

Astolfi DMD PC. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 995 A.2d 1286 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2010). 

At the Referee hearing, Claimant testified that she had been a model 

employee for nearly 12 years. Relative to the July 30, 2018 incidents, Claimant 

claimed that she believed she was only paid for working 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on 

July 13, 2018, so she did not owe Employer four hours as Maiure claimed. 

Regarding taking time off without pay, Claimant stated that Employer 

did not have a written vacation policy, and it was never previously communicated to 

her that she had to use her vacation time first, since taking unpaid leave “was fine for 

the past 11 years[.]” N.T. at 6; see also N.T. at 11. Claimant admitted she had 

vacation time she could have used. See N.T. at 8. Claimant recalled informing Dr. 

Fletcher in June 2018 about poor communication in the office, and he asked her to 

write a letter about her experiences, but nothing changed thereafter. Claimant 

introduced copies of text messages between her and Dr. Fletcher that reflected

Claimant’s intention to return to work on July 31, 2018, and Dr. Fletcher’s response 
5

that, since she chose to leave, she should not return. See N.T. at 9-10; see also N.T. 

Ex. C-2 at 2. 

Dr. Fletcher expounded that, on June 8, 2018, an incident occurred 

between Maiure and Claimant that led Claimant to “loudly stat[e] that this was the 

last day she was going to work and [she] walked out” of the office while patients 

were present. N.T. at 14. He explained that he asked both ladies to write down what 

occurred, discussed the matter with each of them, and warned Claimant that 

abandoning her duties was unacceptable. He reported that Claimant returned to work 

after that incident but, on July 30, 2018, again raised her voice in front of patients and 

walked out.

Based upon the evidence presented at the hearings, the Referee 

concluded:

[Claimant] fully admitted to walking off the job 45 minutes 

prior to the end of her shift[] on July 30, 2018. [Claimant]

provided two things that occurred on her last day of work, 

that ultimately led to her decision to quit, but[] insisted that 

it was a history of poor communication in the office[] that 

had led up to that decision. While the Referee understands 

that [Claimant] may have spoken to [Employer] in June 

2018[] regarding what [Claimant] perceived as poor office 

communications, by [Claimant’s] own admission, she had 

not advised [Dr. Fletcher] that the communication issues 

continued, or made any other attempt to complain that she 

was being mistreated by [Maiure]. [Claimant] argued that 

she attempted to offer to return to work the day after she 

left, and was prevented from doing so by [Dr. Fletcher]. 

[Dr. Fletcher] explained that he had allowed [Claimant] to 

return to work the first time she had walked off the job, 

advising her that it was unacceptable to walk out on patients 

or engage in an argument, or to raise her voice, in the 

patient’s presence, and could not tolerate allowing 

[Claimant] to return to work yet again, after she had walked 

off the job on July 30, 2018. The Referee finds that [Dr. 

Fletcher] was completely [with]in [his] right to decide not 

to let [Claimant] return to work, as [Claimant] had quit at 

4:15 p[.]m[.], on July 30, 2018, when she walked off prior 
6

to the end of her shift. The Referee finds that based on 

[Claimant’s] reasoning for quitting her job, [Claimant] has 

failed to establish necessitous and compelling cause for

quitting, and benefits must be denied under Section 402(b) 

of the [L]aw.

Referee Dec. at 3. 

On appeal, the UCBR adopted the Referee’s findings and conclusions, 

and affirmed the Referee’s decision, adding the following findings: “[Claimant] did 

not tell [Maiure] that [she] believed she only got paid until 12:30[,]” and “[Claimant] 

voluntarily quit employment because of communication issues.” UCBR Order at 1. 

The UCBR concluded:

In her appeal, [Claimant] argues that [Maiure] gave false 

information. The [UCBR] determines credibility. The 

[UCBR] resolves all conflict in testimony in favor of

[Employer]. [Claimant] also argues that [Dr. Fletcher] did 

not say what he did to resolve the issues in June 2018. [Dr. 

Fletcher] testified that he had [Claimant] and [Maiure] write

letters and discussed things individually with [Claimant]

and [Maiure]. [Claimant] loudly walked out on July 30, 

2018 and quit, and this was not [Dr. Fletcher’s] fault. 

Furthermore, [Claimant] did not act reasonably in trying to 

preserve her employment. [Claimant] accuses [Employer]

of miscommunication, but [Claimant] admitted at the

hearing that she too did not communicate. [Claimant] did 

not tell [Maiure] that [Claimant] believed she only got paid 

until 12:30.

UCBR Order at 1.

All credibility determinations are made by the [UCBR]. 

The weight given the evidence is within the discretion of 

the factfinder. The [UCBR] is the ultimate factfinder. The 

[UCBR] determined that Claimant voluntarily left h[er]

employment [without a necessitous and compelling reason]. 

A review of the record reveals that the [UCBR’s] findings 

were supported by substantial evidence.
7

Spadaro v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 850 A.2d 855, 860 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2004) (citations omitted). Because Claimant did not produce credible 

evidence that “circumstances existed that produced real and substantial pressure [for 

her] to terminate [her] employment,” Middletown Twp., 40 A.3d at 228, the UCBR 

properly concluded that she is ineligible for UC benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) 

of the Law.

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bonnie R. Mallit, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 205 C.D. 2019

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8

th day of August, 2019, the Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review’s December 19, 2018 order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge