Background
Donisha Tobe worked 25 to 30 hours per week in the deli at a Giant Food Stores location. After she missed two or three consecutive shifts, the employer treated her as a no-call/no-show and ended her employment. Tobe maintained that she had called off and that her absences arose from a highly personal health crisis. A referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review nevertheless found her ineligible for benefits because she voluntarily left work without a necessitous and compelling reason.
The case turned partly on conflicting testimony. Tobe said she communicated with her supervisor, while the store manager described the employer’s call-off procedure and the information available to management. The Board credited the employer’s evidence and treated Tobe’s repeated absences as a voluntary quit. Tobe, representing herself, petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review.
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court affirmed. Judge Stacy Wallace explained that a health condition can provide a necessitous and compelling reason to leave employment, but the claimant must ordinarily inform the employer of the problem and remain available for suitable work. That disclosure gives the employer a reasonable opportunity to identify an accommodation that could preserve the employment relationship.
Tobe deliberately kept the details of her crisis private and asked that her supervisor not disclose them. The court recognized the sensitive nature of the circumstances but concluded that the limited communication did not adequately inform the employer of a health limitation requiring accommodation. An employer cannot explore schedule changes, leave, or other measures when it lacks enough information to understand the work-related problem.
The Board’s credibility findings also controlled the disputed question whether Tobe followed the call-off procedure. Appellate review did not permit the court to reweigh that evidence. Because the credited record supported both the voluntary-quit characterization and the failure to establish a qualifying health justification, the denial of benefits stood.
Key Takeaways
- A health-related resignation can qualify for Pennsylvania unemployment benefits only if the claimant satisfies the doctrine’s disclosure and availability requirements.
- The claimant must give the employer enough information to make a reasonable attempt at accommodation.
- A desire for medical privacy does not eliminate the statutory burden, although disclosure need only address what is necessary for the employment issue.
- The Board’s supported credibility findings bind the appellate court.
Why It Matters
The decision gives employment lawyers and unemployment-compensation practitioners a practical warning about the record required in health-related separation cases. A claimant need not broadcast intimate medical details, but should document timely notice of the limitation, the requested workplace change, and continued availability for suitable work.
Employers should likewise document call-off communications and ask focused questions about whether leave or another accommodation could resolve the problem. The legal issue is not simply whether the employee was ill; it is whether the employer received a fair opportunity to preserve the job before the separation became final.