Dawkins Unemployment Compensation Case

178 A.2d 775, 197 Pa. Super. 427, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 846
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 21, 1962
DocketAppeal, No. 77
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 178 A.2d 775 (Dawkins Unemployment Compensation Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dawkins Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 A.2d 775, 197 Pa. Super. 427, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 846 (Pa. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

Opinion by

Watkins, J.,

The claimant, Rosie Lee Dawkins, in this unemployment compensation appeal, was last employed by Alvin Lash Wholesale Shirt Laundry, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 18, 1960. At that time she terminated her employment to go to Buffalo, New York, to take care of her sister’s mentally retarded son and home. Continued work was available.

The Bureau of Employment Security and the Referee concluded that the claimant had voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and this disqualified her from benefits under the provisions of §402(b) (1), 48 PS §802(b) (1), of the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed but modified this decision by disqualifying the claimant from benefits under §402(b)(2) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(b) (2).

The findings of the Board are supported by competent evidence, that she left her work in order to care for her sister’s child and home, outside the state. Section 402(b), 43 PS Sec. 802(b), was amended by the Act of December 17, 1959, P. L. 1893, to exclude the performance of domestic obligations as the required “necessitous and compelling” reasons for leaving work. “The pertinent part of this amendment makes the claimant ineligible for benefits, . . in which his or her unemployment is due to leaving work ... (II) because of a marital, filial or other domestic obligation or circumstance . . ”. Buchko Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 559, 175 A. 2d 914 (1961).

Decision affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Jones
352 A.2d 574 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
Crumbling v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
322 A.2d 746 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Hainzer Unemployment Compensation Case
195 A.2d 842 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Arrowsmith Unemployment Compensation Case
190 A.2d 464 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Domico Unemployment Compensation Case
181 A.2d 731 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 A.2d 775, 197 Pa. Super. 427, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawkins-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1962.