Flannick v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 19 July 1951
• Citation: 82 A.2d 671,168 Pa.Super. 606
• Parties: FLANNICK v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

82 A.2d 671

168 Pa.Super. 606

FLANNICK v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

July 19, 1951

Unemployment compensation proceedings, wherein Madlyn Flannick, claimant appealed from decision of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, decision No. B-22606 disallowing benefits. The Superior Court, No. 77, October term, 1951, Reno, J., held that a woman employee who left her employment because of pregnancy without applying for leave of obsence, giving a timely notice, or otherwise manifesting intention not to abandon labor force, and who failed to seek reinstatement to her position after her confinement, was ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Decision affirmed.

Madlyn Flannick, pro per.

William L. Hammond, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Charles J. Margiotti, Atty. Gen., Bruce E. Cooper, Associate Counsel, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, RENO, ROSS, ARNOLD and GUNTHER, JJ.

RENO Judge.

The Board found: ‘ 1. Claimant [appellant] was last employed by the Ernest Ince Beauty Salon, * * * Philadelphia, Pa., from August, 1949, until December 31, 1949. 2. Claimant voluntarily left her employment on December 31, 1949, because of pregnancy. She did not request a leave of absence nor did she return to her former employer in an effort to be reinstated when she was again available for work, after the birth of her baby on April 24, 1950.’ She registered for work in May 26, 1950. The findings are supported by the evidence and are binding upon us. Unemployment Compensation Law, § 510, 43 P.S. § 830. Compensation was denied under § 402, 43 P.S. § 802, which provides: ‘ An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week-

‘ (b) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without good cause’ .

This appeal requires us to consider for the first time the problem and the status of a pregnant employe under the unemployment compensation statute.

It cannot be asserted, dogmatically and without reservation, that a pregnant woman who leaves her employment does so voluntarily and without good cause. A ‘ good cause’ may be personal to the employe and need not be directly connected with the employment, Teicher Unemployment Compensation Case, 154 Pa.Super. 250, 35 A.2d 739, and where an employe is compelled to leave employment by necessitous circumstances the leaving is voluntary but with good cause. Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case, 158 Pa.Super. 548, 45 A.2d 898. Pregnancy is, of course, a physical condition which compels relinquishment or, at least, suspension of employment.

However, the condition which requires a prospective mother to cease work also prevents her from accepting other suitable work, and for a period she is ineligible for unemployment compensation. Law, § 401(d), 43 P.S. § 801(d). There may be instances where a pregnant woman is ‘ able to work and available for work’ in a lighter or different occupation, less difficult or less detrimental to her health, for a period before her confinement, but the market for such service must, in the nature of things, be narrowly restricted. Subject to rare and exceptional cases, it may be said generally that a physical condition which justifies leaving employment will also prevent the employe from working, and consequently disqualify her from receiving benefits. D'Yantone Unemployment Compensation Case, 159 Pa.Super. 15, 46 A.2d 525.

In a realistic approach to the problem here involved, pregnancy must be treated as a temporary disability, the continuance of which varies with different individuals. Moreover, the birth of a child produces different results in various families. In some instances the mother returns to work after the confinement. In others the presence of a child in the household requires the mother's constant attention, and she permanently withdraws from the so-called labor force. In some cases a mother may be so situated (e. g., where she is living with her mother) that she can resume her former work without appreciable diminution of her energy or hours of labor. In other cases the mother will be obliged to divide her time between her child and her employment compelling her to seek and accept only part-time employment, thereby reducing her availability for work, and perhaps rendering her available only for work for which there is no demand in the labor market. And in all cases the health of the mother after the birth of the child is a potent factor.

These are some aspects of the problem. The...