Ravitz v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 11 May 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2026 C.D. 2010,2026 C.D. 2010
• Parties: Linda E. Ravitz, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Linda E. Ravitz, Petitioner
v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent

No. 2026 C.D. 2010

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Submitted: March 18, 2011
FILED: May 11, 2011

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McGINLEY

Linda E. Ravitz (Claimant) challenges the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the referee's denial of benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).¹

The facts as found by the Board are as follows:

1. The claimant was last employed with Fornance Physician Services as a fulltime practice manager at a pay rate of $60,000 per year. The claimant was employed from November 23, 2009 and her last day of work was March 31, 2010.
2. An incident occurred between the claimant and one of the physicians a month prior to the claimant's last day of work; the physician blew up at the claimant and threw a chart.

Page 2

3. When informed management had the physician replaced.
4. During the course of her employment, the claimant had lost control of her subordinates in the performance of their duties.
5. When management was approached, the claimant was instructed to take care of their behavior.
6. The claimant never disciplined or reprimanded the subordinates causing the difficulties.
7. An incident occurred between the claimant and a subordinate about a week before the claimant's last day of work; the claimant felt physically threatened by the subordinate.
8. The claimant was yelled at and lunged at by a subordinate (a medical receptionist) over a scheduling error making her feel physically threatened by the subordinate.
9. The claimant spoke to the individual and disciplined her, calming the situation.
10. There is no indication she had additional problems with this individual.
11. The claimant voluntarily terminated her employment when continuing work was available due to her general dissatisfaction with working conditions.

Board Opinion, August 26, 2010, (Opinion), Findings of Fact Nos. 1-11 at 1-2.

The Board determined that Claimant did not have cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for quitting her employment:

Here, the claimant argued that there were two incidents that occurred, the first occurred a month before she left when a physician threw a chart and the second incident

Page 3

where she felt physically threatened, occurred the week before she left. The claimant continued to work after the physician threw a chart. The claimant argued that she spoke to the director of practice management who did nothing.
The director of practice management presented credible testimony that she instructed the claimant to discipline her employees but the claimant did not comply. The claimant has not demonstrated that the employment situation was intolerable. The claimant's voluntary separation from work was for reasons that do not rise to the level of compulsion or necessity as required under the provisions of Section 402(b) of the Law.

Opinion at 2-3.

Claimant faults the Board's failure to find: 1) she was harassed by staff members and a physician to the extent there was real and substantial pressure to terminate her employment and that Claimant tried to preserve her employment by counseling staff members and reporting to her supervisor, and 2) she voluntarily separated from work with necessitous and compelling reasons.²

Whether a termination of employment is voluntary is a question of law subject to this Court's review. The failure of an employee to take all reasonable steps to preserve employment results in a voluntary termination. Westwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 532 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). An employee who voluntarily terminates employment has the burden of proving that such termination was necessitous and compelling. The question of

Page 4

whether a claimant has a necessitous and compelling reason³ to terminate employment is a question of law reviewable by this Court. Willet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 429 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).

...