IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susan D. King, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 676 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: October 27, 2017

Unemployment Compensation Board :

of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: November 22, 2017

Susan D. King (Claimant) petitions pro se for review from the order 

of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) finding her 

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

the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1 because she voluntarily quit her 

employment without a necessitous and compelling reason to do so. For the reasons 

that follow, 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) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n employe shall be ineligible for 

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

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

I.

Claimant worked for Warren General Hospital (Employer) as a fulltime accounts payable specialist from October 1, 2005, until January 11, 2017. On 

December 21, 2016, Claimant submitted a letter of resignation to Julie Jacobs

(Jacobs), Employer’s Chief Financial Officer, stating that she was leaving due to 

stress.

Claimant then applied for UC benefits indicating that she left her 

employment for health reasons. Claimant stated that over the past year, she 

experienced an increase in workload and demands for shorter deadlines with no 

additional compensation, which caused her anxiety. She further explained:

I FEEL MY RECENT SUPERVISOR HAS 

UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS AND HAS BEEN 

RIDING ME FOR MONTHS, CONSTANTLY 

PICKING AT LITTLE THINGS AND HAS MADE IT 

TEN TIMES HARDER FOR ME TO DO MY JOB 

EFFICIENTLY. MY RECENT EVALUATION WAS 

SO LOW, I WAS PLACED ON PROBATION AND 

GIVEN 60 DAYS TO MEET A DOZEN 

DEFICIENCIES, IN HER OPINION, OR IMMEDIATE 

TERMINATION WOULD RESULT. I ENDED UP AT 

MY DOCTOR SUFFERING FROM RAPID HEART 

RATE, SLEEPLESSNESS, LOSS OF APPETITE, 

BOUTS OF UNCONTROLLABLE CRYING, 

BORDERING ON DEPRESSION. I HAVE BEEN PUT 

ON MEDICATION JUST TO GET THROUGH THE 

DAY. I HAD NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO RESIGN 

FROM A JOB THAT I HAVE LOVED AND 

PERFORMED EFFICIENTLY FOR OVER TEN 

YEARS DUE TO THE HOSTILE, STRESSFUL 

ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY A SUPERVISOR 

THAT JUST CAME TO MY EMPLOYER THIS PAST 

YEAR.
3

(Record (R.) Item No. 2, Internet Initial Claims dated 1/13/17, p. 4.) Claimant 

indicated that she spoke to Jacobs in December about the issues she was having 

with her supervisor and she applied for a different job, but she never requested a 

leave of absence. The UC Service Center determined Claimant was ineligible for 

benefits because she did not exhaust all available alternatives prior to quitting. 

Claimant then appealed.

Before the Referee, Claimant testified that in November 2016, she bid 

on a human resources (HR) assistant position outside of her department due to how 

her immediate supervisor, Julie Dalton (Dalton), Employer’s Fiscal Manager, was 

treating her.2 Several days later, Claimant was called into a meeting with Dalton 

and Matthew Franklin, from HR, and was given her performance evaluation. 

Claimant testified that she received an overall score of unsatisfactory, was placed 

on performance probation and was given 60 days to improve 17 or 18 deficiencies

identified by Dalton.

Claimant testified that she was devastated by her evaluation, which 

was the lowest she ever received in the 10 years she worked for Employer. She

stated that that she could not eat or sleep, was out of control, and was a “mess.” 

On December 2, 2016, she went to see her doctor who put her on an antidepressant 

for stress, anxiety and depression but he did not place any restrictions on her 

 

2 Claimant testified that she later learned that Employer was not going to fill the HR 

assistant position right away.
4

employment. On December 21, 2016, Claimant submitted her letter of resignation 

stating that she was leaving due to stress.

Eric Bens, Employer’s Director of Employee Benefits, testified that 

Employer was not notified of any work restrictions regarding Claimant and she did 

not submit a request for accommodation prior to quitting.

The Referee found Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 

402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b), because she did not establish a necessitous 

and compelling reason for leaving her employment. The Referee determined that 

Claimant did not act with ordinary common sense and did not make a good faith 

effort to preserve her employment. The Referee noted that while Claimant had 

issues with her supervisor and was upset about her evaluation, her doctor did not 

advise her to quit; she did not discuss any other issues or concerns with Employer 

before turning in her notice; she did not request a leave of absence; and she did not 

provide Employer with any restrictions to her employment or request an

accommodation.

Claimant appealed to the Board which affirmed the decision of the 

Referee that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law. 

In doing so, it found that there was not credible medical evidence that Claimant’s 

mental health condition was so severe that it left her no reasonable alternative but 

to quit her position. The Board also did not find credible Claimant’s testimony that 
5

she was subjected to a hostile work environment. Claimant then filed this petition 

for review.3

II.

Claimant first argues4that circumstances existed which produced real 

and substantial pressure on her to quit because she was being harassed by her 

supervisor for a year prior to her resignation. She further argues that a reasonable 

person would have reacted in the same manner after being subjected to constant 

ridicule of her job performance and knowledge.

A claimant who voluntarily quits bears the burden of proving, in order 

to be eligible for benefits under Section 402(b), that she left her employment for 

necessitous and compelling reasons. Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Compensation 

Board of Review, 714 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), appeal denied, 794 A.2d 364 

(Pa. 1999). To show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, a claimant 

must demonstrate that: “(1) circumstances existed which 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 

 

3 Our scope of review of the Board’s decision is limited to determining whether an error 

of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or necessary findings of fact are 

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

704; Rock v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 646, 648 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2010).

4 Claimant has not challenged any of the Board’s specific findings of fact and, therefore, 

they are conclusive on appeal. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 879 A.2d 388, 390 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (citation omitted).
6

ordinary common sense; and (4) the claimant made a reasonable effort to preserve 

her employment.” Brunswick Hotel and Conference Center v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (citing 

Fitzgerald, 714 A.2d at 1129). Whether a claimant has a necessitous and 

compelling reason to voluntarily quit her employment is a question of law subject 

to this Court’s plenary review. Middletown Township v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 40 A.3d 217, 228 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

The only evidence relating to alleged harassment by Dalton is 

Claimant’s own testimony, which the Board did not find credible.5 Moreover, 

mere dissatisfaction with one’s working conditions does not constitute cause of a 

necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily quitting. See McKeown v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 442 A.2d 1257, 1258 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1982). While Claimant may have been upset with her evaluation and 

being placed on probation, this alone does not amount to a necessitous and 

compelling cause absent evidence of unjust accusations, abusive conduct or an 

intolerable working atmosphere, of which there is none. See First Federal Savings 

Bank v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 957 A.2d 811, 816 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2008) (citing Lynn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 427 

A.2d 736, 737 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981)).

 

5 The Board is the ultimate fact-finder in UC cases, and questions regarding the weight of 

evidence and witness credibility are solely within its province. Whitlatch v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 61 A.3d at 399, n.2 (citing Guthrie v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518, 521 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)). As such, we will not 

disturb the Board’s credibility findings on appeal.
7

In her brief on appeal, Claimant alludes to additional evidence in the

form of emails which she claims support her allegation that she was subject to a 

hostile work environment. These documents are not part of the record and, despite 

Claimant’s assertions to the contrary, she did not attempt to introduce them as 

evidence before the Referee. Based upon our review of the record and the Board’s 

credibility determinations, Claimant failed to show an intolerable work 

environment or circumstances extreme enough to justify a resignation. See Ann 

Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 995 

A.2d 1286, 1289-90 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

Claimant also argues that she made a reasonable effort to preserve her 

employment by bidding on the HR assistant position and through her willingness 

to transfer to another department. She claims that when she was not given a 

transfer, she saw “no end in sight” to the situation, especially in light of her health 

issues. (Claimant’s Brief at 10.) However, Claimant admits that her doctor did not 

advise her to quit or place restrictions on her working conditions, and she did not 

ask Employer for or require any specific accommodations. Claimant also failed to 

inform HR of her issues with Dalton prior to turning in her letter of resignation, 

and she admittedly did not request a leave of absence prior to terminating her 

employment. Therefore, Claimant’s argument that she made a reasonable effort to 

preserve her employment is without merit.
8

Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed.

 

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susan D. King, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 676 C.D. 2017

:

Unemployment Compensation Board :

of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2017, the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter 

dated April 21, 2017, at No. B-597014, is hereby affirmed.

 

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge