Opinion

Kanaszka Unemployment Compensation Case

  • 208 Pa. Super. 255
  • 221 A.2d 864
  • 1966 Pa. Super. LEXIS 835
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Aug 16, 1966
Status
Published
Author
Hoppman
On the bench
Ervin, Hoppman, Jacobs, Montgomery, Spaulding, Watkins, Wright
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Hoppman, J.:

Claimant was offered a referral for possible employment as a waitress working from 11:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., six days a week.

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review found that claimant refused to accept such employment, because she cares for her aged mother during evening hours and, therefore, is unable to work after 5:00 p.m. Accordingly, the Board denied benefits to claimant on the ground that, . . a woman’s refusal to work a certain shift because of domestic responsibilities is not refusal for good cause,” a proposition with which I do not disagree.

*256 Claimant advanced another reason for not accepting employment, however, which was not considered by the Board. She stated at the hearing that to accept this job she would have to travel at least one and one half hours to work and two hours from work each day. This testimony was undisputed. If true, however, I would not hesitate to find that the position offered was unsuitable.

Accordingly, I would remand this case to the Board with directions to hold a further hearing to determine if the job offered to claimant was unreasonable in light of the time required for travel to and from work.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.