Appealing a Disqualification for Benefits Due to Receipt of Lump Sum Severance

[mominneedofhelpplease]

My question involves unemployment benefits for the state of: Ohio

Is there anyway to appeal and win the denial of benefits because of a lump sum severance. Ohio unemployment has determined that my severance was received for a period of 38 weeks even though it was a lump sum payment (therefore benefits are being denied for 38 weeks even though I will not get paid severance over that period and they will take more taxes out because of the lump sum than if I were to get paid weekly). My severance agreement does not state any dates or weeks for payment, only a date of my last day of employment. I have the option to appeal, could I appeal to say that it was allocated for that specific date and win? If so, how? If not, is there any other way of appealing the decision?

Thank you in advance!!!

[chyvan]

The other argument you make is if there was a waiver involved, and hopefully you got a copy.

AZ has similar rules as Ohio, but because of the misuse of the word "severance" by many companies, severance isn't always severance. If the employer said, "you'll get this better severance or no severance at all unless you sign this waiver" then they aren't paying you a severance, it's a payment for release of liability on some later claim.

If it is the former case of a better severance, then the true value of the severance is calculated by what you'd get if didn't sign vs what you'd get if you did sign.

[mominneedofhelpplease]

Thank you chyvan I will definitely use this in my appeal. Does it matter that they also cited ORC's 4141.31, 4141.312, 4141.30 (C), and 4141.35 (B). I want to be able to "state my case" in this appeal to win the benefits of unemployment. The company that I worked for gave a lot of people a "severance pacakage" because they were relocating several positions within the company to another state 8 hours away (it was impossible for me to move).

I do have a copy of the waiver that I signed. A few of the sentences in the beginning of the waiver are below (is this what you are talking about, or did they word it perfectly that I won't get unemployment?)

*This waiver and release of claims (agreement) pursuant to the terms of "company" ("Plan") is entered into by and between "company" and the undersigned, me with the mutual exchange of promises as consideration.

*Whereas, employee is eligible to separate from employment under the terms of the Plan and receive certain benefits described below

*Whereas, the Company is willing to separate employee under the terms and conditions set forth herein

*Severance Benefits. In exchange for employee separating from employment with the company effective (date, separation date) and entering into this agreement, the company agrees to furnish the following benefits less applicable withholdings to employee.

It goes on to note separation pay amount, medical/dental (which I am not partaking in), etc.

Sorry, I am not "legal savy" when it comes to all this, so I am hoping I can at least get a little unemployment benefits for being with a company that let me go after 23 years of service. Again, thank you in advance!

[chyvan]

"*This waiver and release of claims (agreement) pursuant to the terms of "company" ("Plan") is entered into by and between "company" and the undersigned, me with the mutual exchange of promises as consideration"

This is the kind of wording I'm talking about. You gave up something, I'm not sure what exactly, in exchange for money. That is the kind of thing that suggests it wasn't really severance. You got paid a settlement.

[cbg]

I don't know where you got the idea that the kind of agreement you refer to means that "it wasn't really severance" but such releases are very, very common with severance that really is severance.

[chyvan]

It's not an idea, and I said "suggests it wasn't really severance." It's based on case law in states that defer receipt of UI benefits because of "severance."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=en&as_sdt=4,6

That court case very clearly explores the concept.

May or may not work in OH, but it's a technique that has been used before and worked.

[cbg]

Uh-huh. Severance almost always contains an agreement that the employee not sue, and the language you quote is almost certainly what was referenced. Agreeing on a severance payment in exchange for an agreement not to sue is not "giving up something", particularly where there is no basis for suit, and most certainly does not transform a severance payment into a settlement.

Try it if you want, OP, but don't bet the rent on success. This is a long shot if I ever heard one.

You do realize that by deferring UI till the severance has expired means that you have an income for a longer period of time, right?

[chyvan]

"You do realize that by deferring UI till the severance has expired means that you have an income for a longer period of time, right?"

This isn't entirely true with EUC being in effect or even with a traditional 26 week claim. One of the requirements for entering EUC is that you exhaust your first 26 weeks before your benefit year end. With an imputed 38 weeks of severance, this becomes an impossibility. The claimant is going to get shut down after collecting approximately only 14 weeks with no chances of an extension under current EUC legislation.

[cbg]

That's not the way it works in my state.

[chyvan]

http://www.mass.gov/lwd/unemployment...rance-pay.html

Your state also recognizes "release of claims," and your earlier posts make it sound like you'd never heard of such a thing.