Unemployment Benefits and Workplace Outbursts
Written by Katelin Carter, Law Student Intern
Every year, Pennsylvania courts review thousands of unemployment compensation cases, many of which turn on the difficult question of when an employee’s decision to resign is voluntary and disqualifying, or severe enough as to justify benefits. Scholars and practitioners alike have long debated the contours of the “necessitous and compelling” cause under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Yet relatively little attention has been given to cases where a single incident of abusive conduct, rather than an extended pattern of mistreatment, forms the basis for eligibility. In East Wheatfield Township v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the Commonwealth Court considered precisely that question: can one public outburst by a township board chair, without more, constitute sufficient cause to resign and still receive benefits?
The facts in this case were straightforward, but dramatic. Colleen Rudnik had served as East Wheatfield Township’s secretary/treasurer for nearly a decade. After sending a memorandum to road crew employees about timekeeping discrepancies, tensions escalated. At a public board meeting, the board chair berated Rudnik, calling her a troublemaker, questioning her competence, and stating that he wished he had never hired her. He further told Rudnik and her husband, a fellow supervisor, that the road crew disliked them both. Rudnik and her husband resigned immediately. The following day, the chair apologized to Rudnik’s husband and asked him to reconsider, but extended no apology to Rudnik herself.
When Rudnik sought unemployment compensation, the Service Center and Referee denied benefits, concluding she had quit without necessitous and compelling cause. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) disagreed, finding that the township chair’s conduct created an intolerable environment. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the UCBR. The majority emphasized that Pennsylvania law has long recognized abusive conduct as grounds for benefits, and that even a single incident can suffice when the surrounding circumstances demonstrate substantial pressure to resign. Because the outburst occurred at a public meeting, involved disparagement by the Township’s highest-ranking official, and suggested continuing distrust and hostility, the Court held that Rudnik acted with ordinary common sense in resigning. Moreover, any attempt to preserve the employment relationship would have been futile, as the harasser was the top decision-maker and had already distinguished between Rudnik and her husband in his apologies.
The decision in East Wheatfield Township has important implications for both employees and employers. For employees, it affirms that even a single episode of severe, public disparagement by a top official can establish necessitous and compelling cause, particularly when further efforts to preserve the relationship would be futile. For employers, it highlights the risks of unchecked conduct by senior leaders. Public criticism, humiliation, or disparagement, especially when directed by those in ultimate authority, can transform what might otherwise be an internal dispute into a legally cognizable justification for resignation and benefit eligibility. For municipalities, the case is a reminder that elected officials must be especially careful with what they say about employees in public. A single remark at a meeting can have real legal and financial consequences.
At MPL we regularly counsel townships and boroughs on how to avoid these pitfalls. If your municipality has questions about best practices for managing personnel issues in public settings, our team is here to help!