IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Emma C. Lynch, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 992 C.D. 2019

Respondent : Submitted: March 13, 2020

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: May 4, 2020

Emma C. Lynch (Claimant) petitions for review of the July 18, 2019 

order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) reversing the 

decision of the referee, which found that Claimant was not ineligible for 

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

Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),

1 not subject to a fault overpayment under 

Section 804(a) of the Law,2 and not subject to penalties under Section 801(b) or (c) 

of the Law.

3

 Upon review, 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 that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any 

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

necessitous and compelling nature.

2 43 P.S. §874(a). Section 804(a) provides for the imposition of a fault overpayment against 

any individual who received monies under the Law to which he/she was not entitled and directs 

that such individual shall be liable for repayment of the same.

3 43 P.S. §871(b), (c). Section 801(b) of the Law provides for the imposition of penalty 

weeks against an individual who makes a false statement or knowingly fails to disclose a material 
2

Claimant was employed as a crew member for McDonald’s (Employer) 

from September 2013 until August 16, 2018. Board’s Decision & Order at 1, 

Finding of Fact (F.F.) 1, Certified Record (C.R.) at 107.

4

 Employer’s owner 

intended to close the store for remodeling and held a meeting with staff and an area 

supervisor two weeks prior to August 16, 2018, the intended closing date, to advise 

them of the closing. F.F. 2-3. During the meeting, Employer’s owner made clear to 

employees that if they were planning on returning when the store re-opened, there 

were positions available at other locations where the employees could work during 

the remodel. F.F. 4. Claimant informed Employer’s owner that she did not intend 

to return after the remodel, asked if she had to put her two weeks’ notice in writing, 

and signed a document indicating that she did not intend to return following the 

remodel. F.F. 5-6. In light of Claimant’s actions, Employer did not specifically 

offer Claimant a position at another store and Claimant effectively quit her 

employment as of August 16, 2018. F.F. 7-8. Between September 8, 2018 and 

December 15, 2018, Claimant received $2,100 in benefits.5 F.F. 9.

On December 24, 2018, the Department of Labor and Industry 

(Department) issued three determinations to Claimant. The first denied Claimant 

benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law. C.R. at 33. The second assessed a fault 

overpayment against Claimant in the amount of $2,100 as a result of falsely alleging 

 

fact in order to obtain benefits under the Law. Section 801(c) provides for the imposition of a 15% 

penalty of the amount of compensation received by an individual as a result of such false statement 

or failure to disclose a material fact. 

4 The certified record does not include page numbers. The citation to the page number 

above refers to the page of the certified record in PDF format as submitted to this Court.

5 Claimant stated that her separation from Employer was due to lack of work when applying 

for benefits. Department of Labor and Industry Unemployment Compensation Overpayment 

Classification Worksheet, C.R. at 31.
3

that she sought benefits for lack of work when she voluntarily quit her employment. 

Id. at 36. The third imposed a penalty against Claimant in the amount of $315 (15% 

of $2,100) as well as 20 penalty weeks against future benefits. Id. at 38. Claimant 

appealed to a referee, who scheduled and held a telephone hearing on May 5, 2019, 

at which Claimant and Lokeri Wood (Wood), an area supervisor for Employer,

testified. Id. at 53 & 67-80.

The referee reversed the Department’s determinations, concluding that 

Claimant was not ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law and, as 

such, was not subject to a fault overpayment or penalties. Referee’s Decision & 

Order at 3, C.R. at 84. Employer appealed to the Board, which reversed the decision 

and order of the referee, denied benefits to Claimant under Section 402(b), and 

reinstated the Department’s imposition of a fault overpayment and penalties. 

Board’s Decision & Order at 4, C.R. at 110. Claimant then petitioned this Court for 

review.

Before this Court,6 Claimant argues that the Board’s finding that she 

voluntarily quit her employment was not supported by substantial evidence and, 

hence, she was not subject to a fault overpayment and penalties. We disagree.

At the hearing before the referee, Claimant testified that she was 

attending college throughout most of her employment with Employer studying 

computer science and that she graduated in May 2018. See Hearing, 5/3/19, 

Transcript of Testimony (T.T.) at 5-6, C.R. at 72-73. Claimant stated that she 

intended to continue working for Employer until she could find a job in her field of 

study and would have continued working but for Employer’s remodeling of the 

 

6 This Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether substantial evidence 

supported necessary findings of fact, whether errors of law were committed or whether 

constitutional rights were violated. Johns v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 87 A.3d 1006, 

1009 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
4

store. T.T. at 6, C.R. at 73. Claimant indicated that Employer’s owner was aware 

of her plans and recounted a conversation during which Employer’s owner allegedly 

advised her that if another position was not available during the store remodel, she 

would be laid off and able to collect unemployment. T.T. at 6-7, C.R. at 73-74. 

Claimant specifically denied ever quitting her job as of August 16, 2018, the date of 

the store closing for the remodel, and instead testified that she was laid off. T.T. at 

7, C.R. at 74. 

Claimant relies heavily on this testimony to support her argument that 

the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See generally 

Claimant’s Brief at 10-14. Such reliance is misplaced, however, as the Board 

specifically rejected Claimant’s testimony as not credible. Board’s Decision & 

Order at 2, C.R. at 108. Instead, the Board credited Claimant’s response in

Claimant’s Questionnaire wherein she acknowledged, in reference to the intent to 

return forms Employer distributed at its staff meeting two weeks earlier, “I did sign 

it and indicated that I was not intending to return.” C.R. at 22. Additionally, the 

Board credited the testimony of Wood, an area supervisor for Employer, that 

Claimant advised Employer’s owner at the meeting that “she was not intending to 

return [after the remodel], so [August 16, 2018] would be her last day of 

employment.” T.T. at 10, C.R. at 77. Wood also stated that at the meeting, 

it was also made abundantly clear [by Employer’s owner] 

that if any of the employees who were adults, were 

planning to return to the restaurant, that they would be 

given positions in other restaurants, and there were 

positions available in everyone [sic] of our other

restaurants through the entire time that this particular

location was closed.

Id. On cross-examination by Claimant’s counsel, Wood indicated that Claimant was 

not offered a position at another store because she had informed Wood and 
5

Employer’s owner that August 16 “was going to be her last day and she didn’t want 

to work in another store.” T.T. at 11, C.R. at 78.

“The [Board] . . . is the ultimate fact finding body and arbiter of 

credibility in unemployment compensation cases.” Deal v. Unemployment Comp. 

Bd. of Review, 878 A.2d 131, 133 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). The Board’s findings are 

binding and conclusive on appeal if the record, when examined as a whole, contains 

substantial evidence to support them. Mathis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of 

Review, 64 A.3d 293, 299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Further, “it is irrelevant whether the 

record includes evidence that would support findings other than those made by the 

Board; the proper inquiry is whether the evidence supports the findings actually 

made.” Kelly v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 172 A.3d 718, 725 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2017), appeal denied, 184 A.3d 547 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted).

In the present case, the testimony credited by the Board above 

constitutes substantial evidence in support of the Board’s finding that Claimant 

voluntarily quit her employment with Employer. Because Claimant chose to focus 

her argument on her allegation that she was laid off and did not voluntarily quit, she 

did not attempt to set forth any necessitous and compelling reasons for leaving her 

employment. As a result, the Board did not err in concluding that Claimant was 

ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law.

Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed. 

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Emma C. Lynch, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 992 C.D. 2019

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2020, the July 18, 2019 order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge