Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harmon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 7, 2017No. D. Harmon v. UCBR - 787 C.D. 2015Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT

The majority has carefully parsed the words of Section 402.6 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1 and concluded that its directive on the eligibility of incarcerated persons for unemployment compensation is ambiguous. I agree with that conclusion. I part company with the majority in its decision to resolve the ambiguity against Daniel Harmon (Claimant), who is subject only to partial confinement and available to work Monday through Friday. Because the Law is remedial in nature, ambiguities therein should be resolved in favor of coverage.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Penflex, Inc. v. BrysonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Evans v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Rosen v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational AffairsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Department L. I. v. Unemplmnt. Comp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  5. Rohde v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API