My wife was denied unemployment benefit claim based on the State of PA's determination that she quit her job for "personal reason and lack of necessitous and compelling reason."

The fact is that she was in the final stage of pregnancy and had no choice but to quit to deliver the baby. We were living in two cities at the time, because her employer was sponsoring her work visa so she could have lost her status if she left (she didn't have a green card at the time), and the only job I could find was in NJ. It was impossible for her to deliver the baby on her own, so she moved to NJ to follow and join me. After the delivery my wife couldn't find a job in NJ, so she filed a claim in PA.

Another ground for the State's denial is that after the baby's delivery my wife could have returned to PA to her job. But how could we work and live 200 miles apart, maintaining two residences while raising a baby?

We felt the reason for quitting was compelling and necessitous, and filed an appeal, but was denied again after the hearing. We plan to appeal again. Do you think we have a strong case to even consider further appealing? Thanks for your time.

Personally, no, I don't. It's not whether you think you have a compelling reason that counts; it's whether your compelling reason is one of the ones allowed by state law. There are a few states which allow following a spouse beyond commuting distace as a compelling reason, but to the best of my knowledge PA is not one of them.

In addition, most if not all states require that you be able to work and actively looking for work before you can collect unemployment. Obviously she would not be able to work and actively looking for work just before she delivers a baby.

I agree with cbg.

While there is no cost related to filing an appeal to the Board of Review, the likelihood of success is minimal to none. Although, I do not currently have access to court decisions, it is my distinct recollection that PA does not award benefits based on your fact scenario.

Moreover, in PA, you must be prepared to file an informed appeal offering legal reasons, supported by precedent, to the Board. I have it on good authority that the Board rarely, if ever, gives due consideration to appeals that simply state that the Referee's decision is wrong.

Thanks very much for both of your replies! Can you recall a similar precedent case, where either of the following happened:
A woman quit her job to deliver a baby and never returned to the job, and was granted unemployment benefit;
One quit her/his job to follow a spouse, and was granted benefit. In the PA labor department's brochure about eligibility issues, there is actually a "spouse following spouse" section that says: "To be eligible, the claimant must show that the reason for the spouse's relocation was beyond the spouse's control, and such relocation created economic circumstances which could not be overcome or that it was economically impossible to maintain two residences." In our case, the husband exhausted all venues to seek employment in the wife's city but failed. The only job available after 3 months' search was in another state. So the husband would either accept that job or face unemployment. Moreover, it would be economically and practically impossible for us to live 200 miles apart, maintain two residences and raise a newborn infant.

thank you again for helping.

With all due respect, if I could think of any precedents that would support your claim, I wouldn't have told you that I didn't think you'd win the appeal. It's BECAUSE I am not aware of any precedents supporting you that I gave you the answer I did.

Bad news for us and our child. But thanks a lot!

[SIZE=7][FONT=Times New Roman]Dear JZLTHSSW:

Just because some people speak in an authoritative manner doesn't make them real experts. I did a little digging for you, and found that your case actually has some potential. Read on, shoot me an e-mail and our office may be able to help you.

First of all, PA UC Law clearly provides for “Spouse following Spouse” as a good cause for quitting in Section 402b. Secondly, do check out "Biley Electric Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and Sturdevant", 45 A.2d 898, also widely referred to as Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation.

In rewarding benefits to a “spouse following relocating spouse,” the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated:

“Willingness, willfulness, volition, intention reside in "voluntarily," but the mere fact that a worker wills and intends to leave a job does not necessarily and always mean that the leaving is voluntary. Extraneous factors, the surrounding circumstances, must be taken into the account, and when they are examined it may be found that the seemingly voluntary, the apparently intentional, act was in fact involuntary. A worker's physical and
mental condition, his personal and family problems, the authoritative demand of legal duties, these are circumstances that exert pressure upon him and imperiously call for decision and action. When therefore the pressure of real not imaginary, substantial not trifling, reasonable not whimsical, circumstances compel the decision to leave employment, the decision is voluntary in the sense that the worker has willed it, but involuntary because outward pressures have compelled it. Or to state it differently, if a worker leaves his employment when he is compelled to do so by necessitous circumstances or because of legal or family obligations, his leaving is voluntary with good cause, and under the act he is entitled to benefits. The pressure of necessity, of legal duty, or family obligations, or other overpowering circumstances and his capitulation to them transform what is ostensibly voluntary unemployment into involuntary unemployment.”

The Court further stated:

“When we approach the problem of a married woman who leaves her work to join her husband we realize immediately that we are in the presence of a compulsion which readily supplies a personal reason and a good cause. Under our law, it is the legal right of the husband to select the marital domicile and it is the legal duty of the wife to reside with him. Hence, when a husband moves the marital domicile to a distant point where he secures work and his wife voluntarily leaves her work to accompany him, her compliance with the duty which the law casts upon her satisfies the requirements of "good cause."”

Later, the Court remarked that the terms "good cause" and "cause of a necessitous and compelling nature" are synonymous (Kleban v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 459 A.2d 53 (Pa. Commonwealth. 1983).

Best,

John

With all due respect, the spouse in this case did not quit to follow her husband. She and her husband were voluntarily working apart, and she quit because she was pregnant. Presumably, the PA unemployment examiners who denied her benefits would have been familiar with the case you've cited and would have followed precedent if it was appropriate in this case.

With all due respect, I did notice that her immigration issue imposed legal restrictions so their prior separation may have not been voluntary. JZLTHSW: you do need to prove that to the board. Was that obstacle removed when you joined your husband? Also, you could gather evidence to demonstrate financial hardship in maintaining two residences after the child was born versus before. There are plenty of precedents on that front.


With all due respect, the spouse in this case did not quit to follow her husband. She and her husband were voluntarily working apart, and she quit because she was pregnant. Presumably, the PA unemployment examiners who denied her benefits would have been familiar with the case you've cited and would have followed precedent if it was appropriate in this case.