Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gusky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 30, 2012Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Senior Judge FRIEDMAN.

I respectfully dissent. I do not agree that Amy Gusky (Claimant) is ineligible for benefits.

Claimant was employed by the Steel Valley School District (Employer) as a full-time chemistry teacher working thirty-eight hours per week from August 24, *3212009, until Claimant’s last day of work on June 8, 2011. Although Claimant continued to receive wages until August 19, 2011, I believe that Claimant was unemployed effective June 8, 2011, and eligible for benefits through September 3, 2011, pursuant to section 402.1 of the Unemployment Compensation Law…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Partridge v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. School District v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API