Unemployment Benefits in NYC

[Missy514]

If anyone can provide some guidance or thoughts on this, it would be deeply appreciated. My father was employed for a world known luxury retailer for close to 10 years. In late 2008, because his company was suffering in sales/financially due to the economy, the company offered a pension package to those employed with the company who are over the age of 50. It was also stressed that those who did not accept the package, were not guaranteed to keep their jobs in the future due to the state of business. My father was 62 at the time and decided to take the package at the last minute. His last day of the company was January 31, 2009. Thereafter, based on conversations he had with friends, etc., he was told that he could possibly receive unemployment and that he should give it a try. He filed and he started receiving unemployment benefits in March 2009. With the unemployment extensions that the government has been giving, he's supposed to receive unemployment until the end of 2010. He received a notice from the unemployment office just about 3 weeks ago stating that his former employer is denying him to receive benefits going forward. He also received an additional notice from his former company's legal representation scheduling a hearing this week claiming that my father voluntarily quit and that they are not only denying him future unemployment benefits BUT they also want him to pay back ALL of the unemployment that he has received since March 2009.

Now my father did not voluntarily quit, he felt that he had no choice but to take the package because his job was not guaranteed. A perfect example is his manager, who decided not to take the package and was laid off the week after the pension package deadline, so I'm 100% sure that my father would have been laid off as well. My question is, why didn't his former employer deny him unemployment from the beginning, back in March 2009, and why did they wait until almost 1.5 years to deny him now? This just doesn't seem fair. Doesn't anyone have any experience or thoughts on this. What are the odds of the hearing being in my father's favor? Doe his former employer have a case?

Thanks in advance!

[cbg]

You are misunderstanding something, somewhere. It is not within the power of the employer to either grant or deny him benefits. They are free to contest, just as the employee has the right to file. But the state, and only the state, has the power to grant or deny benefits. It will not be the decision of the employer, but the decision of the state, whether or not benefits continue. It will also be the decision of the state, and not the employer, whether benefits have to be repaid.

In some states, and I do not know if NY is one of them, if you retire, you are not eligible for benefits, period. I went through that with my mother, who lives in another state. It is possible that through an audit, it has only just now been brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

[Missy514]

Thanks for your response cbg! My father is not at retirement age so that's not the issue. I was under the impression that it is the decision of the employer to grant unemployment benefits, afterall, the Dept of Labor would need to contact the employer to verify employee information, etc., is this not the case? If the state is the sole decision maker in granting benefits, I'm not sure why my father received notice from his former employer's legal representation requesting a hearing in addition to another letter from the Dept of Labor indicating that his former employer is contesting his benefits.

I really do appreciate your response but just really trying to educate myself and learn about the process. Thanks again!

[PattyPA]

Your impression was incorrect.

But wait a minute. The notice did not come from the state Dept of Labor?

[Missy514]

My mistake . . . all the letters that my father has received regarding the hearing/contesting of benefits have been from the Dept of Labor.

PattyPA - any advice or guidance on whether my father has a chance in winning the hearing? Thanks

[cbg]

The state, and only the state, grants or denies benefits. If it was your understanding that the employer had the power to do either, then your understanding was incorrect.

The state does contact the employer since they like to hear both sides of the story before making a decision. They're not going to take the employee's word that they were laid off for lack of work any more than they're going to take the employer's word that they voluntarily quit. Employees have been known to lie about the reason they are no longer employed, just as employers have been known to lie about the reason the employee was let go.

(In an aside, an example of such a case in my experience was an employee who was fired after, upon being counseled for performance, caused such a ruckus that we ended up having a police visit. Whereupon we learned that she had been making accusations of abuse to the cops. When we fired her for that little escapade, she claimed to the UI office that she had been let go for lack of work. Um, no.)

If the letters he has been receiving have all been coming from the DOL, that only serves to back up the theory that a question arose during an audit. Or maybe even that his name got pulled in a random audit.

And the question is not, is he at retirement age. The question is, did he accept a retirement package?

[Missy514]

Thanks cbg. Yes it was a retirement package. If it was decided during the hearing that my father would not receive future unemployment benefits, he would be ok with that. We're more concerned with paying back all that he's received from unemployment from last March. It's thousands of dollars which my father doesn't have laying around to pay it back, I mean, he doesn't even have health insurance because he can't afford it.

[cbg]

I understand. This is only a theory, but it's one that holds up in the face of what we do know, and by my past experience. It's also possible, and I have experience with this as well, that his name simply got pulled in a random audit. I don't know about NY, but in my state, the letter that you get when you're pulled at random also insinuates, if not outright states, that you will be required to repay benefits. So it may turn out to be nothing at all.