Smith v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY
Senior Judge McCLOSKEY.
Sheryl Smith (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that reversed a referee’s decision and order, which found that Claimant was not ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Law. 1 We affirm.
During 2004 and 2005, Claimant performed consulting services for the City of Pittsburgh (Employer). In July of 2006, Claimant was hired by City Councilwoman Towanda Carlisle as an administrative assistant, which rendered her an employee of Employer. In 2007, an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Nolan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Altemus v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Commonwealth v. HayesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Adams v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Reading Area Water Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Royster v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- C.P. Wood, Jr. v. UCBRCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- H. Wotring v. UCBRCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Reading Area Water Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016