IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Melissa Royer, :

: No. 2598 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : Submitted: May 6, 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 SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: July 8, 2016

Melissa Royer (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the October 16, 

2015, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming 

the decision of a referee to deny Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) 

benefits. The UCBR determined that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under 

section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1because she 

voluntarily quit her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling 

nature. We affirm.

 

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

§802(b). Section 402(b) of the Law provides that “[a]n employe shall be ineligible for 

compensation for any week . . . [i]n which [her] unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work 

without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.” 43 P.S. §802(b).
2

Claimant worked as a staff nurse for Children’s Hospital of UPMC 

(Employer) from October 29, 2012, through March 18, 2015. (UCBR’s Findings of 

Fact, No. 1.) On March 18, 2015, Employer met with Claimant to discuss concerns 

that Claimant had. (Id., No. 2.) The meeting did not progress very far because 

Claimant became tearful and left the meeting. (Id.) Claimant did not return to work 

after March 18, 2015, and did not discuss any of her concerns with Employer. (Id., 

No. 3.)

Claimant resigned via email on March 20, 2015, stating no reason for 

her resignation. (Id., No. 4.) Before resigning, Claimant never informed her direct 

supervisor that she felt micromanaged, bullied, threatened, harassed, or subjected to a 

hostile work environment. (Id., No. 5.) Claimant also did not file any complaints 

with the human resources department before she resigned. (Id., No. 6.) Claimant 

was eligible for a transfer if she desired but never inquired about a transfer. (Id., No. 

7.) Had Claimant chosen to remain employed, continuing work would have been 

available to her. (Id., No. 8.)

Claimant filed a claim for UC benefits, which the local service center 

denied under section 402(b) of the Law. Claimant appealed to the referee, who 

scheduled a hearing for June 29, 2015. Claimant did not appear at the hearing.2 

Thus, the referee concluded that Claimant failed to meet her burden of proving that 

she had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her employment and affirmed the 

denial of UC benefits. (Ref.’s Op. at 2.)

 

2 Before the June 29, 2015, hearing, Claimant requested that the referee conduct the hearing 

via telephone because it would be burdensome for Claimant to travel to Pittsburgh to attend the 

hearing. The referee denied Claimant’s request.
3

Claimant appealed to the UCBR, which remanded the matter to the 

referee for a telephone hearing. The referee held telephone hearings on August 24, 

2015, and September 10, 2015, at which both Claimant and Employer testified.

Following remand, the UCBR affirmed the referee’s denial of benefits. 

The UCBR discredited Claimant’s testimony that she was bullied, harassed, and 

threatened at work, noting that “[s]ome of the issues alleged by the claimant occurred 

years before her resignation” and “[o]ther issues were so minor that they would not 

cause a reasonable person to resign.” (UCBR’s Op. at 2.) The UCBR also credited 

the testimony of Employer’s witness that Employer was unaware of Claimant’s 

concerns before she resigned. (Id.) Therefore, the UCBR concluded that Claimant 

failed to prove that she had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her 

employment and that she made a reasonable effort to resolve her concerns with 

Employer before resigning. (Id. at 3.) Claimant requested reconsideration, which the 

UCBR denied on November 10, 2015. Claimant now petitions this court for review.3

On appeal, Claimant asserts that the UCBR erred in concluding that she

is ineligible for UC benefits under section 402(b) of the Law. Specifically, Claimant 

contends that the evidence established that she had a necessitous and compelling 

reason to voluntarily quit. We disagree.

 

3

This court’s review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law, and whether the necessary findings of fact 

are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. 

§704.
4

A claimant who seeks UC benefits after voluntarily terminating his or 

her employment has the burden of proving cause of a necessitous and compelling 

nature. Wert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 41 A.3d 937, 940 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). To establish necessitous and compelling cause, the claimant 

“must prove that: (1) circumstances existed that produced real and substantial 

pressure to terminate employment; (2) such 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 his or her 

employment.” Id. A claimant who voluntarily quits due to a perceived hostile work 

environment can prove that she made a reasonable effort to preserve her employment 

by showing that she first notified her superiors of the harassing or abusive conduct. 

See Porco v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 828 A.2d 426, 428 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2003). However, “[p]ersonality conflicts, absent an intolerable work 

atmosphere, do not amount to a necessitous and compelling” reason to voluntarily 

quit. Wert, 41 A.3d at 940. 

Here, Claimant testified at length about the issues that allegedly caused

her to feel bullied, harassed, and threatened at work, including being asked to cover 

another nurse’s shifts, being asked to call patients while working from home, and 

being asked to share her computer password with a co-worker. (N.T., 8/24/15, at 8, 

21-22, 27-33; N.T., 9/10/15, at 7-8, 18.) She also testified that Employer 

micromanaged her, sent her hostile emails, and blamed her for issues beyond her 

control, such as errors with scheduling patient appointments and obtaining prior 

authorizations for treatments. (N.T., 9/10/15, at 4-8, 12, 27-29, 40-41.) Claimant 

further testified that she left the March 18, 2015, meeting because she “was led to 

believe that the meeting was going to be a fair discussion of how we can better 
5

improve communication” but instead “turned out to be [about] everything [she] was 

doing wrong.” (N.T., 8/24/15, at 9.) 

It is well settled that “mere dissatisfaction with working conditions or 

resentment of a superior’s criticisms, absent a finding of unjust accusations, abusive 

conduct or profane language, does not amount to the necessary good cause for 

quitting.” Magazzeni v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 462 A.2d 

961, 962 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); see Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 995 A.2d 1286, 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). As the 

UCBR found, many of Claimant’s issues related to incidents that occurred two years 

before her resignation and would not have compelled a reasonable person in her 

situation to resign. (UCBR’s Op. at 2.) Therefore, the UCBR correctly concluded

that Claimant’s perception of a hostile work environment was unsupported by the 

credible evidence of record.

Claimant also repeatedly asserts that Marilyn Cieri, Employer’s senior 

practice manager and Claimant’s direct supervisor, provided false testimony. (Cl.’s 

Br. at 17-21, 23, 25, 29.) Cieri testified that she scheduled the March 18, 2015, 

meeting to discuss communication issues with Claimant, but Claimant left the 

meeting before discussing any of her concerns. (N.T., 9/10/15, at 50.) Cieri also 

testified that Claimant never informed her that she felt harassed, threatened, or bullied

in the workplace. (Id. at 51-52.) The UCBR, as the ultimate factfinder, “is free to 

accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part.” McFadden v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 806 A.2d 955, 958 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2002). The UCBR’s findings are conclusive on appeal as long as the record contains 

substantial evidence to support its findings. Spiropoulos v. Unemployment 
6

Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Here, the 

UCBR resolved the conflicts in the testimony in favor of Employer and against 

Claimant. We conclude that the UCBR’s factual findings are supported by 

substantial evidence.

Furthermore, Claimant failed to establish that she made a reasonable 

effort to preserve her employment before voluntarily quitting. Claimant asserts that 

she informed Employer that she was bullied, harassed, and micromanaged in 

numerous emails, which she introduced into evidence at the hearings. However, the 

texts of the emails merely show that Employer was aware of Claimant’s concerns 

regarding miscommunication about her job responsibilities and departmental

procedures. (See, e.g., Exs. S-U, Exs. 22-31.)

4

 The UCBR found that before 

resigning, Claimant never: informed Cieri that she felt bullied, harassed, or 

threatened; filed a complaint with the human resources department; or inquired about 

a transfer to another position. (UCBR’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 5-7.) The UCBR 

specifically rejected Claimant’s asserted reasons for believing that her work 

conditions were intolerable. Moreover, when Employer scheduled a meeting to 

address communication issues with Claimant, Claimant left the meeting before 

discussing her concerns. We agree with the UCBR that Claimant failed to satisfy her 

burden of proving that she resigned for a necessitous and compelling reason. See 

Porco, 828 A.2d at 428 (“[A] claimant must take common sense action to obviate the 

 

4 Most of the email printouts admitted into evidence contain Claimant’s handwritten notes, 

in which she explains how the emails demonstrate Employer’s micromanagement, harassment, and 

bullying. Claimant admitted, however, that she added the handwritten notes to the email printouts 

solely for purposes of this litigation. (N.T., 8/24/15, at 15.)
7

problem so that he or she does not have to terminate employment . . . by informing 

[his or her] superiors of the harassing, humiliating or abusive conduct.”).

Accordingly, we affirm.5

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

 

5

In her petition for review and brief, Claimant also asserts that the hearing transcripts 

contain errors and are missing portions of testimony; however, Claimant does not specify what she 

believes is missing or erroneously transcribed. Therefore, we will not consider this claim.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Melissa Royer, :

: No. 2598 C.D. 2015

Petitioner : 

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8

th day of July, 2016, we hereby affirm the October 16, 

2015, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge