IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Janet Diesing, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 354 C.D. 2004
: Submitted: May 28, 2004
Unemployment Compensation Board :
of Review, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge
HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: July 9, 2004
Janet Diesing (Claimant) petitions for review of the January 21, 2004, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR), which affirmed the decision of the referee to deny Claimant benefits pursuant to section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.
On August 23, 2001, Claimant started working for Classic Bedding Manufacturing Company (Employer) in a sales and marketing position. In January of 2003, Claimant took two weeks off work because of extreme stress. In February of 2003, Claimant was given medication for stress, and, in September of 2003, she was given stronger medication. Claimant did not feel that the medication was helping her. She began to lose her hair, did not sleep well and was jittery. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-5.)
Employer attempted to address Claimant’s problems. Employer offered to switch Claimant’s hours, allow her to work shorter days and allow her to work by herself. Claimant did not accept Employer’s offers. Instead, Claimant notified Employer that she was quitting for personal health reasons. Claimant’s last day of work was October 17, 2003. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 1, 6-9.)
Claimant applied for unemployment benefits at the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Service Center, which denied her benefits. Claimant filed an appeal, and a hearing was held before a referee. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the referee concluded that Claimant failed to make a reasonable effort to maintain her employment. Thus, the referee denied Claimant benefits. Claimant appealed to the UCBR, which adopted the findings and conclusions of the referee and affirmed. Claimant now petitions this court for review.2
Claimant does not dispute the facts in this case. (Claimant’s brief at 7.) Claimant argues only that the UCBR erred in concluding from the facts that she failed to make a reasonable effort to maintain her employment after Employer offered to accommodate her health problems.3 We disagree.
In Genetin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 125, 451 A.2d 1353 (1982), our supreme court addressed what is required of an employee who elects to terminate employment for health reasons. The court stated that, although the Law is not intended to provide health and disability benefits for an ill employee who is unable and unavailable to participate in the work force, medical problems can provide cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating employment. Id.
To be eligible for unemployment compensation, an employee whose health problems prevent her from performing her regular duties must communicate the problem to her employer and be available for suitable work. Id. Once the employee ... has communicated [her] medical problem to the employer and explained [her] inability to perform the regularly assigned duties," the employer may decide to make a reasonable accommodation to the employee’s needs. Id. at 131, 451 A.2d at 1356.
As long as the employee is available where a reasonable accommodation is made by the employer, that is not inimicable to the health of the employee, the employee has demonstrated the good faith effort to maintain the employment relationship required under the Act. Id. at 131, 451 A.2d at 1356. Here, although Employer offered to allow Claimant to work different hours, shorter hours, or by herself, Claimant did not remain available for work. Thus, the UCBR did not err in concluding that Claimant failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to maintain the employment relationship. Accordingly, we affirm.
_____________________________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge