The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Hector L. Salgado Bahena, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 689 C.D. 2024
:
Unemployment Compensation : Submitted: May 6, 2025
Board of Review, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: June 17, 2025
Hector L. Salgado Bahena (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of an
order of the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review (Board) dated May
15, 2024, affirming the decision of the UC referee (Referee) denying UC benefits to
Claimant under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1
After careful review, we affirm.
I. Background and Procedural History
Claimant worked for Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. (Employer) from
May 31, 2022, until September 15, 2023, as a Human Resources Manager. (Referee
Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 1 at Item 9.) Claimant moved from California shortly before
1
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b).
starting his job in Reading, Pennsylvania, but his wife remained in California. (F.F.
Nos. 2, 3, 4.) In approximately August of 2023, Claimant’s wife began experiencing
health issues. (F.F. No. 5.) Claimant informed Employer of his wife’s health issues
and sought to transfer to another position with Employer in California or Arizona, but
no positions with Employer in those locations were available. (F.F. Nos. 6, 7.)
Claimant did not want his wife to move to Pennsylvania because he felt the healthcare
was better in California. (F.F. No. 8.) Before leaving his job in Pennsylvania, Claimant
did not seek a leave of absence from his Employer. (F.F. No. 9.) Claimant could not
afford to support two households. (F.F. No. 10.) On September 4, 2023, effective
September 15, 2023, Claimant submitted his resignation to Employer and moved back
to California. (F.F. No. 11.) Claimant’s last day of work for Employer was September
15, 2023. (F.F. No. 12.)
On September 24, 2023, Claimant applied for UC benefits. (Certified
Record (C.R.) at Item 2.) On December 4, 2023, the Department of Labor and Industry
(Department) found Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law
because it found that Claimant left his employment because of personal or other reasons
without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. (C.R. at Item 3.) On December
19, 2023, Claimant appealed the Department’s denial of UC benefits to the Referee
stating that “the main reason for my resignation from the company Ashley Furniture
Industries was due to my wife’s health complications. Her well-being was in decline,
and being the primary provider for our household, relocation was necessary.” (C.R. at
Item 4.)
A telephonic hearing before the Referee was held on February 28, 2024,
in which Claimant participated, but Employer did not. (Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at
1; C.R. at Item 8.) At the hearing, Claimant was asked his reason for leaving his
employment, to which he answered that it was “due to my wife’s health condition” and
that he needed to support her and take her to appointments. (N.T. at 4.) Claimant also
2
testified that he moved to Pennsylvania on May 27, 2022, but that his wife stayed in
California. (N.T. at 5.) When asked when his wife’s health conditions began, he
testified that they started in August of 2023. Id. The Referee then asked what health
condition his wife had been diagnosed with. Claimant did not provide an answer to
this question. (N.T. at 6.) Claimant was also asked if there was a reason that he did
not request a leave of absence from his position in Pennsylvania, to which he responded
that he had to move in order to support his wife’s health. (N.T. at 6-7.) The Referee
then asked, “what steps would you say you took to try to preserve the employment prior
to resigning?” (N.T. at 7.) Claimant stated that he inquired into whether Employer had
anything available for him in either Arizona or California, but that there was nothing
available. (N.T. at 7-8.)
When the Referee asked Claimant why his wife stayed in California when
he moved to Pennsylvania, he testified as follows
The reason because she has to take care of two other people,
work over here. She was planning to move and to be there
actually in the future. She was planning to move but with this
condition, we decided because California has better – I feel
like the better the health, the hospitals for her condition in
California. The specialty doctor was here, and she didn’t
want to go. That’s one of the reasons I decided to move back
to California and start looking for career. . . .
(N.T. at 8.) Claimant further testified that he was able and available for work at the
time of his separation from work and that it was not possible for him to work remotely
with Employer. Id. The Referee then asked Claimant if he would like to provide any
further testimony regarding his separation from employment. Claimant responded that
“[m]y family needed me. My wife needed me. This is the reason. . . . I need to support
her.” Id.
On March 1, 2024, the Referee issued a decision and order affirming the
Department’s denial of benefits. (C.R. at Item 9; Referee’s decision.) In his analysis,
3
the Referee noted that in cases involving a voluntary separation from employment, the
burden is on the Claimant to prove a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting.
The Referee found the following:
The Pennsylvania [c]ourts have held that an employee who
claims to have left employment for a necessitous and
compelling reason must prove that: (1) circumstances existed
which produced real and substantial pressure to terminate
employment; (2) such circumstances would compel a
reasonable person to act in the same manner; (3) the claimant
acted with ordinary common sense; and (4) the claimant made
a reasonable effort to preserve the employment.
Here, the Referee concludes that [Claimant]’s decision to
resign from the job with [Employer] for personal reasons with
his wife’s health amounts to a personal choice. Thus, the
Referee cannot find that [Claimant] has established a
necessitous and compelling reason for leaving employment at
the time [Claimant] did or that [Claimant] acted with ordinary
common sense and made a good faith effort to preserve the
employment. Accordingly, benefits must be denied under
Section 402(b) of the [ ] Law effective September 24, 2023.
Id. On March 5, 2024, Claimant appealed the Referee’s decision. (C.R. at Item 10.)
In his appeal, Claimant asserted that he resigned from his job to support his spouse
during complications she had with her health, but before he quit, he looked for every
possible alternative to maintain his employment with Employer. Id.
On May 15, 2024, the Board affirmed the Referee’s decision, and adopted
and incorporated the Referee’s findings and conclusions. (C.R. at Item 12.) The Board
determined the following:
Here, [Claimant] did not prove that he qualified for [UC]
benefits under the follow-the-spouse doctrine. Rather, the
Board concludes that it was ultimately [Claimant’s] and his
wife’s personal preference that she remain in California to
deal with her health and that he relocated there, as [Claimant]
did not produce any evidence that they chose California under
4
a physician’s specific advice. While the Board sympathizes
with [Claimant’s] and his wife’s challenging situation, the
Board cannot conclude that [Claimant] voluntarily left his job
for a necessitous and compelling reason. Cf. Rizzuto v.
UCBR, [Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2089 C.D. 2009, filed March 29,
2010), 2010 WL 9514504.] (holding that claimant who
relocated to Florida with her daughter to address the
daughter’s asthma, without being advised to do so by [a]
physician, did not qualify for UC benefits under Section
402(b)). As such, the Referee must be affirmed.
Id. Claimant now petitions for review in this Court
II. Discussion2
This appeal raises a single issue, whether Claimant has proven that he had
a necessitous and compelling reason for his voluntary separation from his employment
under Section 402(b) of the Law. Section 402(b) of the Law states, in pertinent part,
that a person shall be ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits if they
voluntarily leave work “without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature[.]” 43
Pa.C.S. § 802(b). “Whether a claimant has cause of a necessitous and compelling
nature to quit a job is a conclusion of law subject to review by this Court.” Warwick
v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 700 A.2d 594, 596 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1997).
Under Section 402(b) of the Law, Claimant has the burden of establishing
that necessitous and compelling reasons existed for quitting his or her employment.
Green Tree School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 982 A.2d 573,
577 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). A necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily leaving
employment is one that “results from circumstances which produce pressure to
2
Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an
error of law was committed, or whether the necessary factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704; Devine v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 101 A.3d 1235, 1237 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
5
terminate employment that is both real and substantial, and which would compel a
reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner.” Mercy Hospital
of Pittsburgh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 264, 266
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Generally, in order to establish cause of a necessitous and
compelling nature, a claimant must establish that: (1) circumstances existed that
produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment; (2) like circumstances
would compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner; (3) the claimant acted
with ordinary common sense; and (4) the claimant made a reasonable effort to preserve
his or her employment. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 47 A.3d 1262, 1265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). “Cause of
a necessitous and compelling nature may arise from domestic circumstances and need
not be connected with or arise out of the claimant’s employment.” Id. (quoting Green
v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 529 A.2d 597, 598-99 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1987)). However, “case law makes clear that reasons other than personal preference
must exist to support a decision to voluntarily terminate one’s employment[,] and the
decision to quit must be reasonable and undertaken in good faith.” Id. at 1266.
The “follow-the-spouse” doctrine, which is applied when a claimant
leaves employment in order to relocate to be with his or her spouse, can, under the
proper circumstances, enable a claimant to satisfy his or her burden of proof. Leason
v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 198 A.3d 509, 513 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018). This Court has held that,
[u]nder the follow-the-spouse doctrine, a claimant’s burden is
two-fold. First, the claimant must establish that the move
created insurmountable commuting problems or that
maintaining two residences would result in economic
hardship. Under the second inquiry, the claimant must also
demonstrate that circumstances beyond the control of the
claimant’s spouse caused the necessity to relocate, that the
decision was reasonable and made in good faith, and that the
6
relocation was not a result of the spouse’s personal
preferences.
Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
The Board argues that under the follow-the-spouse doctrine, the desire to
maintain the family unit, alone, is insufficient to establish a necessary and compelling
reason to leave employment, citing Rodriguez v. Unemployment Compensation Board
of Review, 174 A.3d 1158, 1164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). (Respondent’s Br. at 6.) In
Rodriguez, this Court emphasized that “a claimant must also demonstrate that
circumstances beyond [the] spouse’s control caused the necessity to relocate. . . .” The
Board further contends that when the move by a spouse is alleged to have been made
necessary by a medical condition, the claimant may prevail if he or she presents
evidence of a physician’s direct order, but that “a mere boilerplate assertion” that
living in another area is required for a medical condition is not sufficient.
(Respondent’s Br. at 6-7.) Claimant’s response to this argument is that he had no
choice but to relocate to California to be near his wife due to some undisclosed illness.
(Appellant’s Br. at 4) (unpaginated).
Under the follow-the-spouse doctrine, a claimant must first establish that
the move created insurmountable commuting problems or that maintaining two
residences would result in economic hardship. Leason, 198 A.3d at 513. Here,
Claimant has clearly met this first criteria. The Board found that Claimant could not
afford to support two households. (F.F. No. 10.) In addition, it is clear that the distance
between California and Pennsylvania would create insurmountable commuting
problems. (See N.T. at No. 8.) (“[B]ut for me, it[’]s difficult if I want to go back to
Pennsylvania, I cannot go back because it’s not close. Long flights, long travel.”)
However, while Claimant has alleged that his relocation was made necessary by his
wife’s illness, he has not demonstrated that Claimant’s wife could not relocate to
Pennsylvania because he has not presented evidence from a physician that living in
7
California is necessary for his wife. Rather, Claimant has merely expressed his
personal opinion that it is necessary for his wife’s health that she continue to live in
California.
In Steck v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 467 A.2d 1378
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1983), this Court found as a matter of law that the claimant was entitled
to UC benefits when she quit her job in Pennsylvania and relocated to join her spouse
in Arizona. Her spouse had moved to Arizona under the explicit direction of his
physician to relocate to a warmer and drier climate because, due to his emphysema and
enlarged heart, he was not likely to survive another winter in Pennsylvania. Id. at 515-
16, 519-20. On the other hand, in Green, we found that Claimant had failed to establish
that he had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating
his employment when he alleged that his reason for voluntarily quitting his job and
moving out of Pennsylvania was his wife’s acute anxiety. Green, 529 A.2d 597. There,
the Board found that no evidence was presented to the Board that the claimant’s wife
was medically advised to re-locate for health reasons. Id. at 599.
In this case, the Board found that Claimant did not want his wife to move
to Pennsylvania because he felt that the healthcare was better in California, so that his
decision to locate there was a personal decision. (F.F. No. 8.) In its determination, the
Board concluded that “it was ultimately [Claimant’s] and his wife’s personal
preference that she remain in California to deal with her health and that he relocate
there, as [Claimant] did not produce any evidence that they chose California under a
physician’s specific advice.” (C.R. at Item 12.) We note that “the Board is the ultimate
fact-finder in unemployment compensation matters and is empowered to resolve all
conflicts in evidence, witness credibility, and weight accorded the evidence,”
Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d
338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), and that the “prevailing party below [] is entitled to the
benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.” Id. For these reasons,
8
we agree with the Board’s determination. Moreover, because our conclusion with
respect to this issue is dispositive, we need not consider the Board’s argument that
Claimant failed to make a reasonable effort to preserve his employment.
(Respondent’s Br. at 9-10.)
III. Conclusion
Because we discern no error in the Board’s determination, we affirm.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
9
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Hector L. Salgado Bahena, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 689 C.D. 2024
:
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2025, the May 15, 2024 order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby AFFIRMED.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge