IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Shon Bright, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2039 C.D. 2014

: Submitted: June 26, 2015

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: August 25, 2015

Shon Bright (Claimant) petitions for review of the decision and order 

of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), holding that he is 

ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(b) of the 

Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1because he voluntarily quit his job 

without a necessitous and compelling reason. We affirm.

 Claimant was employed by Glass Enterprise Inc. (Employer) from 

July 2010 until December 24, 2013, when he voluntarily quit his employment 

 

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, § 402(b), as amended, 43 P.S. §

802(b). Section 402(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n employe shall be ineligible for 

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

without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature ....” Id.
2

because he believed that certain individuals, including his coworkers and his 

neighbor, wanted to kill him for money both because of events that occurred 

during his prior incarceration and because of his involvement in testifying against 

an individual regarding a murder. (Record Item (R. Item) 11, Board’s Decision 

and Order (Board Op.), Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶¶ 1, 3, 17.) 

Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits and by 

Notice of Determination dated March 4, 2014, the Unemployment Compensation 

Service Center (Center) determined that Claimant was not ineligible for benefits 

under Section 402(b) of the Law because he was being harassed by other 

employees and their friends, had informed Employer of his reasons for leaving, 

and had exhausted all alternatives prior to quitting his employment. (R. Item 4, 

Notice of Determination.) Employer timely appealed and on April 14, 2014 a 

referee hearing was held, at which Claimant testified, together with Employer’s 

President and Employer’s Human Resource Manager. (R. Item 8, Transcript of 

Testimony (H.T.).) Both Claimant and Employer’s President testified that 

Claimant had called Employer’s President and told him about a bounty on his head 

and the fact that his coworkers were threatening him, but when Employer’s 

President offered to discuss the issue with Claimant’s coworkers, Claimant told 

him that he did not want him to do so. (Id. at 10, 16.) Employer’s Human 

Resource Manager testified as to Employer’s policy with regard to the steps an 

employee must take to report that he or she is being harassed or threatened on the 

job, as set forth in Employer’s Employee Handbook; he testified that Claimant did 

not make a report, either verbally or in writing, and at the time he quit his 

employment, Claimant simply indicated that his reason for leaving was “personal.” 

(Id. at 27-28.)
3

At the hearing, the referee questioned Claimant as to why he had not 

contacted the police. Claimant initially stated that he did not go to the police 

because he had no proof and that the police would not believe him; he stated 

further that it had been a homicide detective who “really started a lot of stuff that’s 

going on,” and that no one would testify for him in court because [Claimant] was 

“already a snitch.” (R. Item 8, H.T. at 11.) He later testified that he did not go to 

the police because he had gone to the police previously, with testimony about a 

murder that occurred in 2009, and the police had given away his identity as a 

“snitch.” (Id. at 14.) In response to a question from Employer’s President, 

Claimant stated that in addition to three coworkers and “people on the street,” a 

police officer was involved in the conspiracy to kill him. (Id. at 14-15.) 

The referee affirmed the determination of the Center, finding that 

Claimant had established a necessitous and compelling reason for his voluntary 

resignation because he feared for his life, had a bounty on his head and was being 

menaced at work. (R. Item 9, Referee’s Decision/Order, F.F. ¶¶ 3-5; Reasoning at 

2.) The referee reasoned that Claimant could not be safe in the workplace and had 

no choice but to quit his employment so that he could not be found there. (R. Item 

9, Referee’s Decision/Order, Reasoning at 2.) 

Employer appealed the referee’s decision to the Board and the Board 

reversed, denying benefits. The Board stated that it did not credit Claimant’s 

testimony, and noted specifically that it did not credit Claimant’s testimony that his 

coworker made a gesture with his hands like he was holding a gun and pulling the 

trigger. (R. Item 11, Board Op. at 3.) The Board also did not credit Claimant’s 

testimony as to why he did not contact the police, and found specifically that 

Claimant’s coworkers did not threaten him at the workplace. (R. Item 11, Board 
4

Op., F.F. ¶ 6.) The Board further stated that Claimant did not give Employer the 

opportunity to remedy the problem and therefore failed to make a reasonable effort 

to preserve his employment. (Id.)

 Claimant filed the instant petition for review appealing the Board’s 

order to this Court.2 Claimant argues, in essence, that the Board’s finding that he 

did not have a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting his employment was 

not supported by substantial evidence. A claimant seeking benefits after voluntarily 

quitting his job has the burden to demonstrate that he had a necessitous and 

compelling reason for doing so. Solar Innovations, Inc. v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 38 A.3d 1051, 1056 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); Davila 

v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2007); PECO Energy Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of 

Review, 682 A.2d 58, 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). To prove a necessitous and 

compelling reason for leaving employment, the claimant must show circumstances 

that produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment and would 

compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner, and must also show that he 

acted with ordinary common sense and made a reasonable effort to preserve his

employment. Solar Innovations, Inc., 38 A.3d at 1056; Davila, 926 A.2d at 1289

n.4. Whether or not a claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason for 

leaving employment is a question of law subject to this Court’s plenary review. 

Solar Innovations, Inc., 38 A.3d at 1056; Davila, 926 A.2d at 1289; PECO Energy 

Co., 682 A.2d at 61. 

 

2 Our review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact 

are supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed or whether 

constitutional rights were violated. Davila v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 

926 A.2d 1287, 1289 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 
5

Here, the sole evidence that Claimant was being threatened, that there 

was a bounty on his head, and that he had no choice but to quit his employment

was Claimant’s own testimony, and the Board rejected that testimony as not 

credible. The Board is the ultimate fact finder and the arbiter of witness 

credibility. Mathis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 A.3d 

293, 299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Bruce v. Unemployment Compensation Board of 

Review, 2 A.3d 667, 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010); Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2008). Because the burden of proving necessitous and compelling cause for 

leaving employment was on Claimant and Claimant failed to satisfy that burden, 

we affirm the Board’s denial of benefits.

____________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Shon Bright, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2039 C.D. 2014

: 

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2015, the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is 

hereby AFFIRMED.

____________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge