Last month, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law an unemployment compensation ("UC") reform bill. The law, considered by many to be largely pro-employer, is designed to restore solvency to the state’s unemployment compensation trust fund by 2019. Several of the major provisions of the UC reform law are outlined below.
Should an employee who agrees to resign her employment as part of the settlement of her workers’ compensation claim be eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits? According to a recent decision from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the answer to this question is a firm “no.”
An employee who voluntarily quits her employment will not be
In June 2011, the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted a law amending the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law. Many of the amendments’ provisions took effect January 1, 2012, including additional “active search for employment” eligibility requirements for claimants to collect UC benefits.
…
In interpreting the active search requirement and statutory exceptions, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry established specific steps that a claimant must take to satisfy the active search requirement. L&I also added the caveat that, to be relieved from the active search requirement under the layoff/lack of work exception, the claimant must have a projected return to work date within 28 calendar days of when he last worked. The addition of the 28-day requirement caused significant concern for employers who engage in seasonal layoffs, particularly those in the construction industry.
Continue Reading Labor & Industry Revises New Active Search Requirements for UC Eligibility, Drops “28 Calendar Days” Recall Requirement for Temporary Layoff Exception
As a reminder, amendments to the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law that provide for severance pay offsets against unemployment compensation benefits take effect January 1, 2012. We discussed in a prior post the amendments’ definition of “severance pay” and how the severance pay offset will be calculated.
Please note that severance agreements reached between an employer and employee in 2011 should not impact the employee’s unemployment compensation benefits, even if the severance pay continues into 2012. The offset will apply, however, to agreements reached on or after January 1, 2012.
Continue Reading REMINDER: Severance Pay Offset to Unemployment Compensation Benefits Takes Effect January 1, 2012 In Pennsylvania
This post was contributed by Adam R. Long, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC’s Labor and Employment Group.
Act 6 of 2011, which was signed into law on June 17, 2011, amended the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law in a number of ways. These changes include for the first time
On January 19, 2011, a three judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recognized another exception to the at-will employment doctrine. In Haun v. Community Health Systems (pdf), the court affirmed the trial court’s order, which recognized a new exception to the at will rule, and refused to dismiss the wrongful termination claim
Pennsylvania has long been considered an "employment at will" state – meaning that employers and employees may terminate their employment relationship at any time with or without cause or prior notice. However, the number of exceptions to the "at will doctrine" seems to grow every year. The year 2010 was no exception. In Hamovitz v.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently concluded that an employee who was found sleeping on the job four (4) times was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits under the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law ("Law"). Phila. Parking Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 1 A.3d 956 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010) (pdf). Under the
Reductions in Force, Layoffs, Downsizing, Rightsizing or whatever you may call it is occurring with greater frequency as the economic conditions continue to deteriorate. The business objects are reducing costs, preserving talent, treating separated employee with compassion and avoiding litigation. The compassion and litigation avoidance may go hand in glove.
The most prevalent litigation avoidance strategy
The act of getting coffee is not a gender specific act that can form the basis for a sexual harassment claim according to a recent court decision in Klopfenstein v. National Sales and Supply. The plaintiff had asserted that being compelled to perform what she considered to be a ‘servile task’ was, in and