Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lechner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 31, 1994Published

1DissentSilvestri, Senior Judge

Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Claimant met her burden of demonstrating that her voluntary termination of employment, in order to rejoin her family in Pennsylvania, was for necessitous and compelling reasons, I respectfully dissent.

Claimant worked for Ben Venue Laboratories (Employer) in Bedford, Ohio. She was employed from June of 1991 until May 1, Í992 at a final rate of $26,000 per year. When Claimant accepted her position with Employer, she and her husband were both unemployed and living in Pennsylvania. Claimant, her husband, and their children moved to Ohio when…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wheeler v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Kligge v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Phoebus v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REVIEWCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Kurtz v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API