Court Opinion

ID: 9404150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 14:08:41.752406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:12.066413
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jason W. Murphy,                                  :
                                 Petitioner       :
                                                  :
                   v.                             :   No. 1245 C.D. 2021
                                                  :   Submitted: March 10, 2023
Unemployment Compensation                         :
Board of Review,                                  :
                    Respondent                    :

BEFORE:            HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
                   HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
                   HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE DUMAS                                                         FILED: June 22, 2023

                   Jason W. Murphy (Claimant), appearing pro se, has petitioned this
Court to review an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review (Board).             The Board determined that Claimant was ineligible for
unemployment benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation
Law (the Law).1 On appeal, we consider whether Claimant established a necessitous
and compelling reason to voluntarily quit his employment.                       After careful
consideration, we affirm.
                                       I. BACKGROUND2
                   Claimant was employed in the welding department of Fehlinger
Construction Group (Employer) from July 2019 until January 2020. On January 16,

          1
              Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §
802(b).
         Unless stated otherwise, we adopt the factual background for this case from the Board’s
          2

decision, which is supported by substantial evidence of record. See Bd.’s Dec., 9/7/2021.
2020, Claimant voluntarily quit his employment without first providing Employer
an explanation. Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, which the UC Service
Center denied under Section 402(b) of the Law.3 Thereafter, Claimant appealed to
the Referee. Initially, the Referee dismissed Claimant’s appeal as untimely pursuant
to Section 501(e) of the Law.4 However, Claimant further appealed to the Board,
which vacated the Referee’s determination and remanded for a full hearing.
               At the hearing, Claimant addressed both the timeliness of his appeal as
well as the substantive reasons for voluntarily leaving his employment. Claimant
testified that he mailed his appeal on November 30, 2020, from his local post office
at Harvey’s Lake but conceded that it did not receive a postmark until several days
later at the Lehigh Valley post office. Regarding the merits of his claim, Claimant
testified that he was uncomfortable with the sexually explicit conversations and
gestures of his coworkers. However, Claimant did not report this behavior to
Employer because he thought that it would lead to ridicule or an awkward situation.5
               Following the hearing, the Board concluded that the delay in Claimant’s
appeal was caused by the United States Postal Service and outside of Claimant’s

       3
          Section 402(b) provides that an employee is ineligible for compensation for any week
where his unemployment is the result of his voluntary work departure without a necessitous and
compelling cause. 43 P.S. §802(b).
        4
          On November 13, 2020, the UC Service Center denied Claimant benefits. The envelope
containing Claimant’s appeal was postmarked December 3, 2020. At the time, Section 501(e) of
the Law required appeals to be filed within 15 days of a notice of determination. 43 P.S. § 821(e).
        5
          The Board did not credit the explicit details of Claimant’s testimony, finding only that
“the sexual nature of his co[]workers’ conversations and gestures” made him uncomfortable. Bd.’s
Dec. at 1. Nevertheless, Claimant described the final incident leading to his departure. According
to Claimant, his supervisor, Tom Scouten, asked employees where they liked to ejaculate, and the
employees began to discuss sexual activities they engaged in with their partners. See Notes of
Testimony (N.T.) Hr’g, 5/17/21, at 6. This was not isolated behavior. Claimant described another
instance where a coworker repeatedly inquired about the size of Claimant’s penis, see id. at 9, and
a separate occasion when a coworker placed “[his] penis on [Claimant’s] shoulder.” Id. at 8.

                                                2
control. It therefore deemed Claimant’s appeal timely. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b). The Board
determined that Claimant’s failure to report his concerns deprived Employer of an
opportunity to remedy the situation. Thus, Claimant failed to establish a necessitous
and compelling reason for leaving his employment. Claimant timely petitioned this
Court for review.6
                                           II. ISSUE
               Claimant contends that he voluntarily quit for a necessitous and
compelling reason, i.e., sexually explicit language and conduct by his coworkers that
made him feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and hopeless. See Claimant’s Br. at 8. See
generally Claimant’s Br. at 8-13. While Claimant concedes that he never filed a
formal complaint, he suggests that his “verbal and nonverbal actions on many
instances” demonstrated that such inappropriate words and behavior made him
uncomfortable. Id. at 8. Moreover, according to Claimant, such conduct was incited
by his superiors. Id. For these reasons, Claimant implicitly asserts that any formal
complaint would have been futile. See id. at 8-12. Thus, Claimant concludes that
the Board erred in denying him unemployment benefits. Id. at 13.7

       6
          Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated,
whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by
substantial evidence. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 280 A.3d
1125, 1127 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022).
        7
          Although Claimant’s brief lacks proper legal argument or citation to relevant legal
authority, see Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a), we are generally inclined to construe pro se filings liberally.
Smithley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 8 A.3d 1027, 1029 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). These
defects in Claimant’s brief do not preclude our meaningful appellate review. Arnold v. Workers’
Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lacour Painting, Inc.), 110 A.3d 1063, 1067 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).

                                                 3
                                 III. DISCUSSION
             A claimant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if he voluntarily
quits his job without a necessitous and compelling cause. Section 402(b) of the Law,
43 P.S. § 802(b). To satisfy the burden of proving a necessitous and compelling
cause, a claimant must show (i) the existence of real and substantial pressure to
terminate employment; (ii) that a reasonable person would have acted in the same
manner; (iii) that he acted with ordinary common sense; and (iv) that he exercised
reasonable efforts to preserve his employment. Greenray Indus. v. Unemployment
Comp. Bd. of Rev., 135 A.3d 1147, 1151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).
             Sexual harassment may constitute real and substantial pressure to
voluntarily quit employment. Serrano v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 149
A.3d 435, 440 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). “[T]here is a certain level of conduct that an
employee will not be required to tolerate[,] and the Court will not place all
responsibility upon an employee to resolve his or her work dilemma.” Id. (citation
omitted). Nevertheless, an employee usually must first notify an employer of the
harassment before quitting to demonstrate that he has exercised reasonable efforts to
preserve his employment. Id. Reporting affords an employer the opportunity to
understand the nature of the claimant’s objections and take prudent efforts to resolve
the problem. Collier Stone Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 876 A.2d 481,
484 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).
             An employee need not report sexual harassment if the employee
reasonably believes that reporting would be futile. Martin v. Unemployment Comp.
Bd. of Rev., 749 A.2d 541, 544 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (citing Peddicord v.
Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 647 A.2d 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)). For example,
in Peddicord, an employer’s regional manager made sexually offensive comments

                                          4
to an employee, including on one occasion in front of the employee’s direct
supervisor, who did nothing.       Peddicord, 647 A.2d at 298.         Under these
circumstances, this Court imputed knowledge of the harassment to the employer and
absolved the employee of any obligation to report the harassment prior to her
voluntary resignation. Id. (concluding that “the claimant had every reason to believe
that reporting [the harassment] would have produced no satisfactory result”).
             However, we reached the opposite result in Johnson v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 725 A.2d 212 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). There, a store
manager made sexual advances toward the claimant. Id. at 213. The claimant
objected, and the manager agreed to change her conduct; however, the behavior
continued. Id. The claimant did not report the ongoing harassment to higher level
managers before eventually quitting. Id. The Board denied benefits, and this Court
affirmed, concluding that the claimant had failed to take common sense action to
alleviate the harassment. Id. at 214-15 (observing that the claimant did not attend a
scheduled meeting with the employer’s area supervisor on the day she quit). The
Court stated that reasonable efforts “necessarily include reporting complaints of
sexual harassment to an employer representative other than the perpetrator of the
conduct[,]” provided the perpetrator is subject to the employer’s supervision. Id.
             In this case, the facts align more closely with Johnson than Peddicord.
The Board found that the sexual nature of Claimant’s coworkers’ conversations and
gestures was offensive to Claimant. See Bd.’s Dec. at 1. There is ample support for
this finding in the record. See Notes of Testimony (N.T.), Hr’g, 5/17/21, at 6-9.
During his testimony, Claimant also offered reasons for not reporting the offensive
conduct to Employer. Initially, for example, Claimant testified that he did not feel
comfortable telling his immediate supervisor, because the supervisor was a

                                         5
perpetrator of the offensive conduct. Id. at 6 (“Tom is actually my neighbor, so I
didn’t want to make things extra weird in daily life.”).8 Claimant also suggested that
there should be no need to report such behavior because “[t]hat’s not okay in any
workplace that I know of.” Id. at 7. In its findings, the Board specifically credited
Claimant’s concern that he would be ostracized. See Bd.’s Dec. at 1; N.T. Hr’g at 7
(“You just get made fun of for not being part of the group.”).
               Under these circumstances, Claimant was not required to report the
offensive conduct to his immediate supervisor, but he should have taken other
reasonable steps to inform Employer of the harassment. Johnson, 725 A.2d at 214.
Clearly, he did not. When asked if he could have reported the harassment to the
human resources department, Claimant conceded that he did not know if Employer
had one. N.T. Hr’g at 8.9 When asked if he ever communicated with the engineer
who supervises the welding department, Claimant replied, “I don’t know who that
is.” Id. at 9. When asked if he had ever voiced his complaints to the company
owners, Claimant stated, “I never met them either.” Id. at 9-10. Finally, when asked
if he reported his complaints to the company office where he applied for his job,
Claimant conceded, “No, I did not.” Id. at 10.

       8
          The Board did not credit specifically the supervisor’s participation in the harassment but
did credit Claimant’s concern that reporting the harassment would “create an awkward situation[.]”
Bd.’s Dec. at 1.
        9
          Claimant then testified that he could not approach Justin Scouten, Tom’s brother and “the
guy above” Tom. N.T. at 8. The hierarchy within Employer’s welding department is not entirely
clear from the record. Nevertheless, this Court has recognized that a supervisor’s familial
relationship to a claimant’s perpetrator is not sufficient reason to excuse a claimant’s failure to
report sexual harassment. Butler v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 327 C.D.
2011, filed Aug. 12, 2011) (unreported), slip op. at 6, 2011 WL 10841568, at *3 (the claimant was
not excused from reporting sexual harassment where the employer’s father was the claimant’s
perpetrator). We cite Butler for its persuasive value. See Pa. R.A.P. 126(b)(1); 210 Pa. Code §
69.414(a).

                                                 6
            Based on the express findings of the Board, and the testimony
highlighted above, we decline to impute knowledge of Claimant’s sexual harassment
concerns to Employer. See Peddicord, 647 A.2d at 298. Claimant’s failure to report
this offensive conduct deprived Employer of an opportunity to resolve the problem.
Collier Stone Co., 876 A.2d at 484. The record does not support a finding that
Claimant’s reticence was due to a reasonable belief that reporting would be futile
but rather that such effort may lead to an awkward situation. Thus, we agree that
Claimant failed to establish a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting.
Greenray Indus., 135 A.3d at 1151.
            For these reasons, we affirm the Board.

                                     LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

                                        7
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jason W. Murphy,                     :
                      Petitioner     :
                                     :
           v.                        :   No. 1245 C.D. 2021
                                     :
Unemployment Compensation            :
Board of Review,                     :
                    Respondent       :

                                   ORDER
           AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2023, the decision of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, entered September 7, 2021, is
AFFIRMED.

                            LORI A. DUMAS, Judge