Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID L. JENKINS (01/29/76)

decided: January 29, 1976.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DAVID L. JENKINS, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of David L. Jenkins, No. B-125488.

COUNSEL

Michael Saltzburg, with him Daniel P. McDyer, for appellant.

Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 128]

David L. Jenkins (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed an order of the referee denying him benefits.

The referee found that Claimant was employed as a sales representative, that his travel in the course of his employment required him to be absent from his home five nights of the week, and that he voluntarily terminated his employment because his wife's illness required him to be at home every night.

The referee concluded that Claimant was not eligible for benefits because he voluntarily terminated his employment due to domestic circumstances. The Board affirmed and dismissed the appeal.

Two issues are before us for resolution:

[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 1291]

) Whether an employee, whose duties require extensive absence from his home who voluntarily terminates his employment so that he may attend his ailing wife is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(b)(2) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act);*fn1

2) Whether Section 402(b)(2) violates Claimant's right to equal protection of the law.

Unfortunately for Claimant and those in like situations, we are bound, as is the Board, by legislative prescription. We must affirm ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.