Court Opinion

ID: 9907423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:08:47.279984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:37.051641
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Nancy Tagland,                 :
                               :
                    Petitioner :
                               :
            v.                 : No. 1356 C.D. 2022
                               : Submitted: November 6, 2023
Unemployment Compensation      :
Board of Review,               :
                               :
                    Respondent :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
             HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                        FILED: December 6, 2023

             Petitioner Nancy Tagland (Claimant), proceeding pro se, petitions for
review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board)
affirming a referee’s determination that Claimant is ineligible for unemployment
compensation (UC) benefits under Section 404(d)(1) of the Unemployment
Compensation Law (Law)1 based on the amount of severance she received.
Claimant contends that the Board erred in concluding that she was not eligible for
UC benefits. Upon review, we affirm.
             Claimant worked full time for Cigna Health and Life Insurance
Company (Employer) until her last day of work on December 11, 2020. After her

      1
        Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S.
§804(d)(1).
separation from employment, Claimant applied for UC benefits, which a local
service center denied. Claimant appealed, and a referee held a hearing.
              Claimant appeared for the referee’s hearing, without counsel, to present
testimony and evidence on her appeal. Certified Record (C.R.) at 74. Employer did
not appear, despite attempts made by the referee to contact Employer. Id. Claimant
testified that she received severance from Employer in the amount of $204,354.80
upon her separation from employment. Id. at 80. Based on this severance, the
referee determined Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under Section 404(d)(1)
of the Law.
              Claimant appealed to the Board. The Board adopted the referee’s
findings as its own. The Board found that Claimant regularly worked eight hours
per day, five days a week and earned $49.12 per hour. Claimant filed an application
for benefits effective December 13, 2020, establishing a weekly benefit rate of $572
and a partial benefit credit of $172. Claimant received severance benefits in the
amount of $204,354.80.          The three-year average statewide annual wage in
Pennsylvania applicable to applications beginning in 2020 is $54,686.20. Board
Op., 8/3/22, at 1 (adopting Referee’s Op., 3/16/22, Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 2-
5). The Board determined that Claimant’s severance rendered her ineligible for UC
benefits under Section 404(d)(1) of the Law because the amount she received
exceeded the statewide annual wage in Pennsylvania. Thus, the Board affirmed the
referee’s determination of ineligibility. Claimant’s petition for review to this Court
followed.2

       2
         Our review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact were supported
by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether constitutional rights
were violated. 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Johns v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 87 A.3d
1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
                                              2
               Claimant asks whether she was denied UC benefits because she signed
a “Release of Claims and Settlement Agreement” in which she agreed not to sue
Employer based on her status in a protected class (age 65 at the time of her separation
from employment). On this basis, she maintains that she is entitled to UC benefits.3
               Claimant waived this issue on multiple grounds. Initially, Claimant
waived the issue by failing to raise it before the referee. See Schaal v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 870 A.2d 952, 954-55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (“A
claimant waives review of an issue by failing to raise it before the referee when [s]he
had an opportunity to do so.”). Claimant offered no testimony or argument regarding
any such agreement during the referee hearing. See C.R. at 71-98. She did not offer
the document as an exhibit. See id. In addition, Claimant waived the issue by failing
to raise it in her appeal to the Board.             See C.R. at 113; see also Lewis v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 A.3d 375, 379 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2012) (holding that the claimant waived issues because they were not raised in the
appeal to the Board). Even if Claimant had raised the issue, the issue is waived for
the additional reason that Claimant has not developed any argument in her brief or
offered any explanation as to how the alleged agreement is relevant to the severance
deduction from her UC benefits. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924
(Pa. 2009) (“[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim
with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other
meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.”); Berner v. Montour
Township, 120 A.3d 433, 437 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (ruling that a party’s failure
to sufficiently develop an issue in a brief constitutes waiver of the issue).

       3
        We note that Claimant failed to challenge any specific findings of fact made by the Board.
Therefore, the Board’s findings are conclusive on appeal. Campbell v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 694 A.2d 1167, 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
                                                3
             Nevertheless, mindful of Claimant’s pro se status, we offer a brief
explanation as to why she is ineligible for UC benefits. Section 404(d)(1)(iii) of the
Law provides that a deduction shall be made from a claimant’s weekly benefit rate
for certain types of payments, including “the amount of severance pay that is
attributed to the week.” 43 P.S. §804(d)(1). Section 404(d)(1.1)(i) of the Law
defines “severance pay” as

             one or more payments made by an employer to an employe
             on account of separation from the service of the employer,
             regardless of whether the employer is legally bound by
             contract, statute or otherwise to make such payments. The
             term does not include payments for pension, retirement or
             accrued leave or payments of supplemental
             unemployment benefits.
43 P.S. §804(d)(1.1)(i). Section 404(d)(1.1)(ii) and (iii) of the Law provide the
calculation formula:

             (ii) The amount of severance pay attributed pursuant to
             subclause (iii) shall be an amount not less than zero (0)
             determined by subtracting forty per centum (40%) of the
             average annual wage as calculated under subsection (e)
             as of June 30 immediately preceding the calendar year in
             which the claimant’s benefit year begins from the total
             amount of severance pay paid or payable to the claimant
             by the employer.

             (iii) Severance pay is attributed as follows:

                   (A) Severance pay is attributed to the day, days,
             week or weeks immediately following the employe’s
             separation.

                    (B) The number of days or weeks to which
             severance pay is attributed is determined by dividing the
             total amount of severance pay by the regular full-time
             daily or weekly wage of the claimant.

                                          4
                   (C) The amount of severance pay attributed to each
             day or week equals the regular full-time daily or weekly
             wage of the claimant.

                    (D) When the attribution of severance pay is made
             on the basis of the number of days, the pay shall be
             attributed to the customary working days in the calendar
             week.

43 P.S. §804(d)(1.1)(ii)-(iii)(A)-(D) (emphasis added).
             Here, Claimant received $204,354.80 in severance. F.F. No. 4. The
statewide average annual wage for Pennsylvania is $54,686.20, 40% of which is
$21,878. See F.F. No. 5. Subtracting $21,878 (40%) from $204,354.80 (severance)
equals $182,477 under 43 P.S. §804(d)(1.1)(ii). Next, we calculate Claimant’s
weekly wage. Claimant regularly worked eight hours per day, five days a week and
earned $49.12 per hour, which equals a $1,965 weekly wage. See F.F. No. 2; C.R.
at 81. By dividing the amount of severance pay ($182,477) by the regular full-time
daily or weekly wage of the claimant ($1,965), equals 92.86, which is the number of
weeks to which severance pay is attributable under 43 P.S. §804(d)(1.1)(iii)(B).
             Because Claimant’s severance is attributable over 92.86 weeks,
Claimant’s weekly benefit rate is reduced to $0 for those weeks. As a result,
Claimant is not eligible for UC benefits for her entire benefit year. Thus, the Board
did not err in concluding that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under Section
404(d)(1) of the Law.
             Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.

                                       MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

                                         5
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Nancy Tagland,                 :
                               :
                    Petitioner :
                               :
            v.                 : No. 1356 C.D. 2022
                               :
Unemployment Compensation      :
Board of Review,               :
                               :
                    Respondent :

                              ORDER

           AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2023, the order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated August 3, 2022, is
AFFIRMED.

                                __________________________________
                                MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge