Colduvell v. Commonwealth, 408 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Colduvell v. Commonwealth, 408 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
80 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: R.A. Deleon v. UCBR, No. R.A. Deleon v. UCBR - 1913 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 12, 2017)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
408 A.2d at 1208 Requirement of reasonable attempt to stay on job5 citing casesalthough good cause existed, where claimant did not give owners “opportunity to understand the nature of her objection, before resigning,” she did not satisfy legal requirement of reasonable attempt to stay on the job2 citing courts put it this way
  • R.A. Deleon v. UCBR, No. R.A. Deleon v. UCBR - 1913 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 12, 2017).unpublished
    Bd. of Review, 408 A.2d 1207, 1208 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
  • Demar v. Dep't of Labor, 2010 VT 69, 6 A.3d 695.published 2 cites
    (although good cause existed, where claimant did not give owners “opportunity to understand the nature of her objection, before resigning,” she did not satisfy legal requirement of reasonable attempt to stay on the job)
  • Tedesco Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 552 A.2d 754 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989).published
    Colduvell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 185, 187 , 408 A.2d 1207, 1208 (1979).
  • Garcia v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 488 A.2d 762 (Vt. 1985).published
    (although good cause existed, where claimant did not give owners “opportunity to understand the nature of her objection, before resigning,” she did not satisfy legal requirement of reasonable attempt to stay on the job)
  • Blakely v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 464 A.2d 695 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983).published
    Iaconelli v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 117, 121 , 423 A.2d 754, 756 (1980); Colduvell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 185, 187 , 408 A.2d 1207, 1208 (1979).
48 Pa. Commw. at 187 Failure to report harassment precludes unemployment benefits4 citing cases“employees are understandably reticent to complain or try to prove affronts of such a personal and debasing nature as sexual harassment.”2 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (92%)
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Florence Colduvell
v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
Appeal, No. 984 C.D. 1978.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Dec 28, 1979.
Published opinion
408 A.2d 1207
1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2291
Jerry Cohen, with him Edward Blumstein, Klein, Blumstein, Vanore <& Bloch, for petitioner., David R. Confer, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Craig, Crumlish, Mencer.
Cited by 39 opinions  |  Published

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

Florence Colduvell’s claim for unemployment compensation benefits was denied by tbe Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, on the basis of tbe referee’s determination that she voluntarily terminated ber employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature under Section 402(b) (1) of tbe Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43P.S. §802(b) (1).

Claimant’s own testimony substantially supports tbe referee’s findings that:

2. During tbe course of ber employment, claimant ran into personal conflicts with ber Office Manager because of ber lateness when returning from lunch.
3. For tbe past three years claimant was also annoyed by sexual insinuations habitually made by ber Office Manager, as well as momentary physical contacts which be initiated and for which be apologized.
4. Claimant never mentioned tbe specific causes of ber annoyances to ber superiors who were in a position to alleviate tbe situation.
5. Claimant voluntarily terminated ber employment because of tbe aforementioned problems at work.

An unemployment compensation claimant has tbe burden of proving that job termination was for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, by showing that one’s conduct was consistent with common sense and prudence. Mackanic v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 347, 390 A.2d 884 (1978); Aluminum Co. of America v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 78, 324 A.2d 854 (1974).

Although tbe record fully supports claimant’s contention that ber termination was prompted by tbe re[*187] peated “sexual insinuations” and “physical contacts” initiated by her office manager, the record also clearly indicated that claimant did not take the required common sense action to obviate the problem so that she would not have to leave. Zinman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 649, 305 A.2d 380 (1973).

Claimant testified that the “sexual insinuations” and “touching,” which began 2% to 3 years before her September 1977 termination, had increased over time. However, during that period, claimant made only one attempt to report this despicable situation to the owner of the company. Approaching the owner, but failing to indicate the nature of the problem, claimant was permanently rebuffed by the owner’s reply that at that particular moment he was too busy to see her. Claimant did not attempt to discuss the problem with anyone again before she quit.

The problem of job-related sexual harassment or insinuation is a very difficult one; employees are understandably reticent to complain or try to prove affronts of such a personal and debasing nature, especially when they come from a supervisor.

However, for purposes of unemployment compensation benefits, the law is clear: the claimant must sustain the burden of proving a reasonable attempt to stay on the job. Claimant’s failure to give the owners an opportunity to understand the nature of her objection, before resigning, did not meet that burden.

Therefore, we affirm the order of the board denying claimant benefits.

Order

And Now, this 28th day of December, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above captioned case, dated April 6, 1978, is affirmed.