Unemployment Claim for Former Employee

Forgive my naiveté as I am new to the unemployment world. Quick background... I am on a board of directors for a non-profit preschool. We recently received a letter from the NM unemployment office. A previous employee (who left to move to CA in June of 2010) filed for unemployment in June 2011. We received a bill as the school is operating as a reimbursable employer (none of us were aware of this, or when it came about).

We are assuming the former employer left her job in CA, or was fired, and we fall into her base period for determination of benefits. Is it true that we would have to pay towards her benefits, even though she quit the school, and we have the reason she left (parents bought her a house in CA) documented? I have never been on either side of the unemployment routine, but this just sounds bizarre. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

am I understanding the situation correctly if I read it as you did not contest the unemployment when it was initially applied for?

why would you view this new situation any differently than you did the initial unemployment issue? It appears to be essentially the same.

Did the notice give you appeal rights? If not, you probably have to pay. If it did, then exercise them.

It's really not all that bizarre. Many a former employer has had it's reserve account charged for a separation it had nothing to do with. Depending on the circumstances, the former employer's best chance of averting the charges is to make a bona fide offer of employment. They'll either get the benefit of the former employee's return, will indirectly pay through it's reserve account for no real benefit because of an unsuitable offer of employment, or will be relieved of charges because it was able to create a disqualifying refusal of work issue.

Quote:

---

Quoting chyvan

---

Did the notice give you appeal rights? If not, you probably have to pay. If it did, then exercise them.

It's really not all that bizarre. Many a former employer has had it's reserve account charged for a separation it had nothing to do with. Depending on the circumstances, the former employer's best chance of averting the charges is to make a bona fide offer of employment. They'll either get the benefit of the former employee's return, will indirectly pay through it's reserve account for no real benefit because of an unsuitable offer of employment, or will be relieved of charges because it was able to create a disqualifying refusal of work issue.

---

I would have to guess that due to the distance, OP cannot make an offer of employment the person would be required to accept. After all, the reason they left the OP's employment was they were moving to California. That is when they should have contested the first application for UI (back in June 2011). I think they may be stuck with it now since they failed to act then.

It's also possible (at least it would be in my state) that although the wages through the OP's company would be included in determining the benefits, the OP's account will not be charged since they did not dismiss him.