Quinn, Gent, Buseck & Leemhuis, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentDoyle, Judge
With due respect to the majority’s view, I believe the majority has inverted the burden of proof in this case and labors through an analysis for a solution from an erroneous premise.
Contrary to the view of the majority, the essential question here is whether, after an employer’s substantial unilateral change in an employee’s working conditions, the employer must offer a suitable alternative in the form of a reasonable accommodation to that employee. It is, of course, a basic principle of unemployment law that a “claimant can meet his burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Genetin v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Monaco v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REVIEWSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Bowman v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.