stating that section 3 of Law, 43 P.S. § 752, is a guide by which to interpret and construe the individual sections of the Law
How later courts described this case
- stating that section 3 of Law, 43 P.S. § 752, is a guide by which to interpret and construe the individual sections of the Law
- noting that the Law was enacted to address the “serious menace" of “economic insecurity due to unemployment”
- “[T]he logical focus for determining whether necessitous and compelling reasons exist for a claimant to voluntarily terminate his employment after receiving a demotion is the justification for the demotion.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
dissenting.
I would affirm the Commonwealth Court’s decision based upon Old Forge Bank v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 666 A.2d 761 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995). I join in Mr. Justice Gappy’s dissenting opinion with the exception of his statements that a necessitous and compelling reason to voluntarily leave employment requires “the most drastic circumstances.” To the contrary, a necessitous and compelling reason to leave “results from circumstances which produce pressure to terminate employment that is both real and substantial, and which would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner.” Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 358-59 , 378 A.2d 829, 832-33 (1977); Old Forge, 666 A.2d at 764 .