As attorneys argued what promises to be an important unemployment compensation decision from the state Supreme Court, one thing quickly became clear: How the justices choose to define the word “retirement” would impact the matter at hand.
The case of Diehl v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review came before the high court in Harrisburg last week. It involves a dispute in which the court will decide whether a Pennsylvania man may claim benefits under the “voluntary layoff proviso” in Section 402(b) of the state’s Unemployment Compensation Law when the man’s layoff appeared to mark an early retirement. So far, claimant Harold Diehl has been denied benefits every step of the way.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
