IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


Margarita I. Davila, : 
Petitioner : 

 v. 

Unemployment Compensation : 
Board of Review, 
Respondent

BEFORE: 
HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 
HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge 
HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge 

OPINION 
BY JUDGE McGINLEY FILED: June 26, 2007 

Margarita I. Davila (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review from the 
order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which 
affirmed the referee’s denial of benefits under Section 402(b) of the 
Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 

The relevant facts as found by the Board are as follows: 

1. The claimant was last employed as a social work 
supervisor by the City of Philadelphia from February 8, 
1988, at a final rate of $59,889 and her last day of work 
was April 14, 2006. 

2. The employer has a program called the DROP 
program, which employees who are of retirement age 
may choose to participate in. 

3. The employee must file an application and if approved 
must retire within four years of the application date. 

4. During this time period neither the employer nor the 
employee contribute to the employer’s pension, and the 
employee’s pension amount no longer increases. 

5. Monthly pension credits, in the amount of the pension 
payment the employee would be entitled to, are made to a 
special account for the employee. 

6. When the claimant retires she is entitled to a lump 
sum payment of the amount credited to the special 
account. 

7. The claimant applied for and was accepted into the 
DROP program. 

8. Continuing work was available to the claimant had 
she not retired. 

9. The claimant retired effective April 14, 2006, 
pursuant to the terms of the DROP program. 

Board Decision, January 8, 2007, Findings of Fact Nos. 1-9 at 1-2; Reproduced 
Record (R.R.) at 2a-3a. 

The Board determined that Claimant did not have a necessitous and 
compelling reason to quit her job: 

The claimant retired pursuant to the employer’s DROP 
program which she voluntarily participated in. The 
claimant has not provided the Board with her reason for 
entering the program, which required her to retire within 
four years. The Referee did inquire about the reason, but 
the claimant did not wish to present testimony on this 
issue. The claimant alleges that she had a cause of a 
necessitous and compelling nature to quit because she 
was required to under the DROP program. The Board 
finds this argument to be without merit. 

The claimant chose to enter the program, which she knew 
required her to retire. The claimant has not presented any 
testimony or evidence to establish that she had a reason 
to enter into this agreement that the Board can consider 
good cause for her to do so. Section 3, which has been 
called the Keystone of the Pennsylvania Unemployment 
Compensation Law, states that the purpose of the Law is 
to protect individuals who are unemployed through no 
fault of their own. A review of the DROP program, 
which was submitted into evidence, shows that the 
claimant received a financial gain by entering the 
program. The record does not indicate that the claimant 
was in imminent danger of being laid off at the time she 
entered the program or at the time of her separation. 
Therefore, the Board also concludes that the claimant is 
not unemployed through no fault of her own. 

Accordingly, the Board must conclude that the claimant 
did not have cause of a necessitous and compelling 
nature to voluntarily leave her employment and is 
ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law. 

The claimant referred to the DROP program at the 
Referee’s hearing as an established employer program. 
While it was an established program the claimant was not 
laid off. Therefore, the proviso to Section 402(b) of the 
Law for employees who accept a layoff pursuant to an 
established employer program does not apply. 

Opinion at 3; R.R. at 4a.2 

Claimant contends that her participation in the DROP [Deferred 
Retirement Option Plan] provided cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for 
her to leave her employment and that she became unemployed through no fault of 
her own.3 

The Board also determined that Claimant could appeal the Service Center’s 
determination nunc pro tunc. That issue is not before this Court. 

An employee who voluntarily terminates employment shoulders the 
burden of proving that such termination was necessitous and compelling. The 
question of whether a claimant has a necessitous and compelling4 reason to 
terminate employment is a question of law reviewable by this Court. Willet v. 
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 429 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 
1981). Where an employee resigns, leaves, or quits without action by the 
employer, the action amounts to a voluntary termination. Sweigart v. 
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 408 A.2d 561 (Pa. Cmwlth. 
1979). 

Claimant asserts that she had a necessitous and compelling reason for 
terminating because she was legally obligated under the DROP to resign within 
four years of entering the program. Because the City of Philadelphia (Employer) 
instituted the program, Claimant asserts that she may not be disqualified from 
receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Further, Claimant asserts that 
Employer did not state in the Philadelphia City Code or Home Rule Charter that a 
participant in DROP was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation 
benefits. At the hearing before the referee, Claimant stated, “[t]he reason why I 
joined that program are not an issue here.” Notes of Testimony, October 30, 2006, 
at 9; R.R. at 14a. 

Good cause for voluntarily leaving one’s employment 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. 
Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 
280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 

In order to prove that a claimant had a necessitous and compelling 
reason for quitting employment, a claimant must establish that circumstances 
existed which produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment, that 
like circumstances would force a reasonable person to quit, that the claimant acted 
with ordinary common sense, and that the claimant made a reasonable effort to 
preserve employment. The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company v. 
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 913 A.2d 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 
2006). 

Here, this Court agrees with the Board that Claimant failed to 
shoulder her burden. Claimant’s sole reason for retiring was because she applied 
for and was accepted into the DROP program and the program required her to 
retire within four years of her application date. Claimant has not established that 
she was in danger of losing her job had she not entered the DROP. In fact, the 
Board credited the testimony of Douglas Abbott, Administrative Trainee I for 
Employer, that Claimant had continuing work available. Even if Employer 
attempted to induce employees to leave employment through the DROP, that 
inducement without additional circumstances, such as a lack of continuing work, 
either at the time of the inducement or at a certain point in the future, would not 
provide a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating employment. See 
Staub v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 673 A.2d 434 (Pa. 
Cmwlth. 1996).5 

Accordingly, this Court affirms. 

BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge