 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Antique Showcase at Blackhorse v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review6/20/2002
The Antique Showcase at Blackhorse (Petitioner) petitions this Court for review of the December 28, 2001 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which sustained the Referee's decision granting benefits to Holly Keim under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง802(b) (voluntary quit due to necessitous and compelling cause). Petitioner contends that the Board's findings that Keim established necessitous and compelling reasons for voluntarily terminating her employment and made reasonable attempts to remain employed were not supported by substantial or credible evidence. Also the Referee granted benefits based on his improper speculation and conjecture rather than on the facts of record.
The Referee issued a decision reversing the Lancaster Unemployment Compensation Service Center and awarded benefits to Keim. Petitioner appealed and on December 28, 2001, the Board issued an order affirming the Referee, who made the following findings of fact. The Blackhorse Lodge first employed Keim on May 3, 2000 as a housekeeper at the Antique Showcase, and as of her last day of work on June 5, 2001 she was employed as a manager. After approximately two months of her hire, Keim was promoted to a front desk position, and in December 2000 she was promoted to manager. Keim's promotion to the front desk position resulted in an increase in contact with the owner, Glen Redcay. Upon her promotion to manager, Keim had almost daily contact with Redcay. In September 2000 Redcay invited Keim to join him for a drink in the Lodge's restaurant on the occasion of Keim's birthday, which she accepted. At that time, Redcay moved one of Keim's legs over his legs, whereupon Keim and a companion left the restaurant. Shortly thereafter, Redcay called Keim to his office, where he committed other acts of a sexual nature. Between September 2000 and March 2001 Redcay often touched Keim's buttocks, whispered in her ear and played with her hair. Keim demanded that Redcay stop this behavior each time that it occurred. Keim had no higher authority to whom she could report Redcay's behavior as he was the owner and perpetrator, and in March 2001 Keim advised Redcay that if his behavior continued she would take action against him. Redcay then began to criticize Keim's work and to find fault with everything that she did. Keim resigned her employment when Petitioner indicated that she would be demoted.
The Referee rejected Petitioner's suggestion that the favors that it extended to Keim, including a rent-free room, demonstrated that she was not in a difficult relationship. The Referee stated that this fact may indicate also that Redcay used promotions and favors to "press his suit" of Keim. In any event, once Keim threatened outside action against Redcay, he retaliated by criticizing Keim's work performance and eventually attempted to demote her, which caused her to quit. Further, the testimony of Petitioner's former supervisor did not show that Keim committed willful misconduct. The witness testified that Keim was to be demoted because she was in over her head, had no prior management experience and was promoted too quickly. The Referee concluded that absent a demotion due to willful misconduct, Keim established necessitous and compelling reasons to quit her job. The Board adopted the Referee's findings and affirmed the decision.
The Court's review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether it committed an error of law or a constitutional violation and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Comitalo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of R
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|