position to follow her domestic partner to Florida. 3. The claimant’s domestic partner relocated to Florida in order to be near her son, who has a learning disability. 4. The claimant resigned her position and relocated to Florida because she was not financially able to maintain two separate households in two states. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-4.) Based on these four findings, the UCBR then determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) because, “unfortunately,” unless Claimant is legally married to her domestic partner, she cannot prove a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving her employment. (Referee’s op. at 2); see Kurtz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 101 Pa.Cmwlth. 299, 516 A.2d 410 (1986) (<HOLDING>), appeal denied, 516 Pa. 644, 533 A.2d 715
holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding there is no protected liberty interest in maintaining the foster family relationship holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business holding that the following spouse doc trine does not apply to an unmarried heterosexual couple because until there is a marriage there is no family unit recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct