Court Opinion

ID: 9899791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 17:10:38.212604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:49.543851
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anna Marie Patricia Seader,            :
                  Petitioner           :
                                       :
             v.                        :     No. 1328 C.D. 2022
                                       :     Submitted: July 14, 2023
Unemployment Compensation              :
Board of Review,                       :
                 Respondent            :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
             HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                      FILED: November 17, 2023

             Anna Marie Patricia Seader (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of
an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board),
affirming the Referee’s determination that Claimant was ineligible for pandemic
unemployment assistance benefits after July 16, 2020, because she was no longer
unemployed as a direct result of the COVID-19 Pandemic and that a non-fault
overpayment was established.      On appeal, Claimant argues that she remained
eligible for pandemic unemployment compensation benefits, despite receiving an
offer of full-time employment, because the rate of pay was lower than at her previous
job. Discerning no error in the Board’s adjudication, we affirm.
             Claimant was employed by Family Health Council of Central
Pennsylvania (Employer), until March 17, 2020, when, due to the COVID-19
Pandemic, Employer shut down its business.1 Claimant was unable to work. On
March 27, 2020, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act,2 which provided financial assistance to individuals affected
by the COVID-19 Pandemic. The CARES Act provided that individuals entitled to
receive unemployment compensation benefits could be paid “regular compensation”
in the amount determined under state law, plus an additional amount for “pandemic
unemployment compensation.” 15 U.S.C. §9023. For weeks of unemployment
ending on or before July 31, 2020, eligible individuals could receive $600 weekly
Federal    Pandemic      Unemployment         Compensation        (FPUC).         15    U.S.C.
§9023(b)(3)(A)(i). Individuals not otherwise eligible for “regular compensation,”
such as those who were self-employed, were made eligible for Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) under Section 2102 of the CARES Act.3 15
U.S.C. §9021.
              Claimant applied for PUA benefits. The Department of Labor and
Industry, Office of Unemployment Compensation Benefits (Department), issued a
determination finding Claimant eligible for PUA benefits at a weekly amount of

1
   On March 19, 2020, because of COVID-19, Governor Wolf issued an Executive Order
temporarily closing all businesses deemed to be non-life-sustaining. See Friends of Danny DeVito
v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872, 878-79 (Pa. 2020).
2
  15 U.S.C. §§9001-9141.
3
  Individuals eligible for unemployment compensation benefits but unable or unavailable for work
due to specified COVID-19 related reasons, including the closure of the place of employment as a
direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, could receive PUA benefits. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 16-20 (April 5,
2020), available at: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2020/UIPL_16-
20.pdf (last visited November 13, 2023).
                                               2
$254,4 plus an additional $600 weekly in FPUC benefits. On September 14, 2020,
she began working for Meadville Medical Center.
              A year later, in October 2021, the Department issued a Pandemic
Unemployment Disqualifying Determination, finding that Claimant was
              no longer unemployed as a direct result of the Pandemic. You
              refused, without good cause, to apply for or to accept suitable
              work which is cause for denial of [Pandemic Assistance]
              benefits.

Certified Record at 14 (C.R. __). Accordingly, the Department informed Claimant
that she had been overpaid PUA benefits for the weeks ending March 21, 2020,
through September 12, 2020, in the amount of $254 a week for a total of $4,883.
Additionally, she was overpaid FPUC benefits for the weeks ending March 2, 2020,
through July 25, 2020, in the amount of $7,200. Claimant appealed, and a hearing
was held before a Referee.
              Claimant testified that she stopped working for Employer on March 17,
2020, when it closed because of the COVID-19 Pandemic.                         She filed for
unemployment compensation benefits.                Claimant subsequently found other
employment at the Meadville Medical Center in September 2020.                         Prior to
September 2020, Claimant testified that she had been offered a job as a Nutritional
Services Aide, but she declined the offer because “it wasn’t going to meet [her]
needs[.]” Hearing Transcript at 5 (H.T. __); C.R. 79. She explained that the salary
for the nutritional services aide position was “so low” that she would not be able to

4
  Pennsylvania’s Pandemic Unemployment Assistance “provides up to 79 weeks of benefits to
qualifying individuals who are otherwise able to work and available for work within the meaning
of applicable state law, except that they are unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or
unavailable to work due to COVID-19-related reasons[.]” Pennsylvania’s Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance Portal, https://pua.benefits.uc.pa.gov/vosnet/Default.aspx (last visited
November 13, 2023).
                                               3
pay her bills or “even pay off [her] student debt.” H.T. 5; C.R. 79. Claimant testified
that during the time she received PUA benefits, she applied for 100 jobs. She argued
that she was eligible for unemployment compensation during that six-month period
of time, notwithstanding her refusal to accept a job offer.
               Following the hearing, the Referee issued a decision finding that
Claimant was eligible for benefits under Section 2102(a)(3) of the CARES Act, 15
U.S.C. §9023(b), effective March 15, 2020, through July 25, 2020, but ineligible for
benefits effective July 26, 2020. In so doing, the Referee made the following
findings of fact:
               2.    On March 17, 2020 the claimant was furloughed from her
               job at Family Health Council of Central PA due [to] the
               pandemic mandated closures.
               3.    On July 24, 2020 the claimant was offered full time
               employment as a Nutritional Services Aide with Encompass
               Health.
               4.     The claimant declined that job as she was not satisfied
               with the rate of pay.
               5.     The claimant started working full time in South Carolina
               on or about September 15, 2020.[5]
               6.    The claimant received PUA benefits for the weeks ending
               March 21, 2020 through September 12, 2020 in the amount of
               $254 per week for a total of $4,883.
               7.    The claimant received [] Federal Pandemic
               Unemployment Compensation benefits for the weeks ending
               May 2, 2020 through July 25, 2020 in the amount of $600 per
               week for a total of $7,200.

Referee Decision at 2, Findings of Fact Nos. 2-7; C.R. 88.

5
 In Finding of Fact No. 5, the Referee stated that Claimant “started working full time in South
Carolina.” This appears to be a typo, as Claimant testified that she started working full time at the
Meadville Medical Center in Pennsylvania. H.T. 4; C.R. 78.
                                                 4
              The Referee explained that Claimant was unemployed due to the
Pandemic from March 15, 2020, through July 24, 2020. Because she was offered a
job and no longer unemployed due to the Pandemic, the Referee found that she was
ineligible for PUA benefits under Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(1) of the CARES Act,
effective July 16, 2020. Accordingly, Claimant was not entitled to PUA benefits for
the weeks ending August 1, 2020, through September 12, 2020, which totaled
$1,178. However, the Referee found the $1,178 overpayment not fraudulent.
              Because Claimant was eligible for PUA benefits for the weeks ending
March 21, 2020, through July 25, 2020, she was entitled to the FPUC benefits.
Accordingly, the Referee cancelled the notice of overpayment for the FPUC
benefits.
              Claimant appealed the Referee’s decision to the Board, which affirmed
the Referee’s decision. In so doing, the Board adopted and incorporated the
Referee’s findings of fact. Claimant then petitioned for this Court’s review.
              On appeal,6 Claimant has identified four issues in her brief.7 Her brief
does not develop each of these issues but, rather, argues that the Board erred in
determining that she was ineligible for PUA benefits effective July 26, 2020.

6
  This Court’s review determines whether constitutional rights were violated, whether errors of
law were committed, or whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.
Sheets v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 708 A.2d 884, 885 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1998).
7
  Claimant’s Statement of Questions sets forth the following four questions:
       (1)     Why has the Department [], the Pennsylvania Unemployment
       Compensation Office, and its Board []failed to recognize its decisions are in
       contradiction with its published instructions to users of its services? []
       (2)     Having presented this evidence in January 2022 in the request for the second
       appeal, and then again in August 2022 in the appeal to the Board of Review, why
       has [the Department] not specifically addressed it or even acknowledged the
       submission of the evidence?

                                                5
               We begin with a review of the relevant legal principles, which draw on
both state and federal statutes.
               The CARES Act provides PUA benefits to covered individuals, which
is a defined term. Section 2101(a)(3) of the CARES Act states, in relevant part, as
follows:
               (3) Covered individual
               The term “covered individual”--
                      (A) means an individual who--
                      (i) is not eligible for regular compensation or extended
                      benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic
                      emergency unemployment compensation under section
                      9025 of this title, including an individual who has
                      exhausted all rights to regular unemployment or extended
                      benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic
                      emergency unemployment compensation under section
                      9025 of this title;
                      (ii) provides self-certification that the individual--
                              (I) is otherwise able to work and available for work
                              within the meaning of applicable State law, except
                              the     individual    is   unemployed,      partially
                              unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work
                              because--
                                                        ****

        (3)     If these [Pandemic Unemployment Assistance] benefits were ineligible,
        why were they paid and not reviewed for over a year?
        (4)     Why has [the Department] sent, retracted, then sent again the Notice to
        Assess Penalty on this matter, which is awaiting the appeals process, and citing
        extraordinary amounts having no relevance to this matter?
Claimant Brief at 8. The argument section of Claimant’s brief mentions the first issue on appeal;
therefore, the Court will address this issue. However, Claimant does not mention or even develop
issues 2, 3, and 4 in her brief; therefore, the Court will not address those issues in its opinion.
Rapid Pallet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 707 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1998) (arguments not properly developed are deemed waived).
                                                6
                               (jj) the individual’s place of employment is closed
                               as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health
                               emergency[.]

15 U.S.C. §9021(a)(3)(A)(i), (ii)(I)(jj). Because Claimant became unemployed on
March 17, 2020, when her place of employment was shut down by COVID-19, she
became a “covered individual” entitled to PUA benefits as of that date.
                 To remain eligible for PUA benefits, Claimant had to remain
unemployed due to a COVID-related reason for each week. See Unemployment
Insurance Program Letter No. 16-20, Change 1, Attachment I, pg. I-12, Question 46;
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/
UIPL/2020/UIPL_16-20_Change_1_Attachment_1.pdf (last visited November 13,
2023). Accordingly, refusal to work renders a claimant no longer unemployed due
to a COVID-related reason. Id., Question 49. Guidance from the United States
Department of Labor provides:
                 Additionally, the individual may still be eligible for PUA if he or
                 she [was] to refuse work that would be considered suitable under
                 state law, but turned the work down for “good cause” under state
                 law. To continue to be eligible for PUA after turning down
                 suitable work for “good cause,” this individual still must be
                 unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to
                 work because of one of the COVID-19 related reasons.

Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 16-20, Change 2, Attachment I, pg. I-
7, Question 16; https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2020/
UIPL_16-20_Change_2_Attachment_1.pdf (last visited November 13, 2023)
(emphasis added).
                 Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)8 states,
in part, that an individual is ineligible for compensation for any week

8
    Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(a).
                                                7
              [i]n which his unemployment is due to failure, without good
              cause, either to apply for suitable work at such time and in such
              manner as the department may prescribe, or to accept suitable
              work when offered to him by the employment office or by any
              employer[.]

43 P.S. §802(a). Claimant has the burden to prove that the work available was not
suitable9 and that she had good cause for the refusal. Rising v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 621 A.2d 1152, 1153-54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
              Claimant does not dispute that she was capable of performing the work
as a nutritional services aide with Encompass Health.10 The question is whether she
had good cause to refuse that job offer, i.e., “real and substantial reasons.” Rising,
621 A.2d at 1155. At the hearing before the Referee, Claimant testified that she
rejected the offer from Encompass Health because the salary “wasn’t going to meet
[her] needs[.]” H.T. 5; C.R. 79. It was “so low” that she would not be able to pay
her bills or “even pay off [her] student debt.” H.T. 5; C.R. 79.
              Refusal to accept employment based upon the amount of compensation
does not, ipso facto, constitute good cause for refusal. In Conti v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 420 A.2d 778, 779 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980), we held
that the claimant did not have good cause to refuse a job that paid a wage 24% lower
than his previous wage, especially after 7 months of unemployment. In Bicer v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 377 A.2d 828, 829 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1977), the claimant, an unemployed machinist, refused a “machinist/die maker”
position because the rate of pay was too low. The claimant previously earned $5.00
an hour, and the new job paid $4.82 an hour for the first 30 days and $4.97 thereafter.

9
  Suitable work is all work which the employee is capable of performing. Section 4(t) of the Law,
43 P.S. §753(t).
10
   Claimant worked as a Nutritionist at Family Health Counsel of Central Pennsylvania prior to
the Pandemic. H.T. 4; C.R. 11, 78.
                                               8
At the time of the job offer, the claimant had been unemployed for five months. We
held that “the rate of pay of the offered employment was not such as to justify the
refusal of that employment.” Id. at 829. See also Donnelly v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 330 A.2d 544, 547 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (after 3.5
months of unemployment, “[a] claimant’s particularity for desired employment must
decrease” to the point of accepting substantially less remuneration; viz., $550 per
month, as opposed to $704 per month); Valentine v. Unemployment Compensation
Board of Review, 180 A.2d 85 (Pa. Super. 1962) (claimant did not act in good faith
by refusing employment paying $50 and $60 a week, as compared to prior weekly
wage of $100, after more than 4 months of unemployment).
            Here, Claimant’s only reason for rejecting the offer of employment was
the reduction in compensation. She claimed that the pay was “so low” that she could
not “pay off” her debt and bills. H.T. 5; C.R. 79. However, Claimant did not provide
any evidence to compare her prior rate of pay with that offered. Because a reduction
in compensation is not, by itself, good cause to refuse employment, Claimant did not
make her case.
            Claimant argues, however, that the Board’s instructions led her to
believe she could refuse a job offer that paid less than she made before her
unemployment. She cites the Board’s online questions and answers, which state, in
part:
            Q.     What kind of jobs can I apply for?
            A.      You may apply for jobs that would provide suitable work;
            that is, any work that you are capable of performing. However,
            you are allowed to limit your job applications to jobs that offer
            employment and wages similar to what you had before you
            became unemployed[.]

                                         9
C.R. 84 (emphasis added). This online information is irrelevant because it relates to
the job application process and does not pertain to the refusal of a job that has been
offered.
             Claimant had been unemployed approximately four months when she
applied for a job that paid less than her previous employment. Once she received
the offer, she could not refuse to accept it solely based on the rate of compensation.
             For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s adjudication.

                            _____________________________________________
                            MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

                                         10
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anna Marie Patricia Seader,        :
                  Petitioner       :
                                   :
            v.                     :    No. 1328 C.D. 2022
                                   :
Unemployment Compensation          :
Board of Review,                   :
                 Respondent        :

                                 ORDER

            AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2023, the August 3, 2022,
adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

                          _____________________________________________
                          MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita