Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default Unemployment Eligibility

    My question involves unemployment benefits for the state of: IL

    So last year I was forced out of my job. It was more than apparent management wanted me out. I am not going to go in the tit fot tit about who did what. But the environment was pretty bad for me and I felt down right miserable.

    So I gave a 3 week notice and was let go 3 days later and was told "that there was no more work for you to do and you free to go today". I was like your laying me off?? no one answered any questions no exit interview for HR...etc. We were at will employees and I fully understand that.

    At this point I file for unemployment, I felt that I was laid off and there was no more work for me to do. I got approved unemployment which was great because the jobs stressed me so much that I needed medication.

    So now a year later I have to re-certify for benefits and I got a letter saying that a question for eligibility has been raised regarding your eligibility for the period BEGINNING 7/25/2010 for your unemployment benefits. The reason was because EMPLOYER INDICATED THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY LEFT YOUR JOB....Now I have an interview with a Claims A next week.

    I guess my question is this:

    I got benefits for the last year, if I wasnt eligible shouldn't I have been denied a year ago?

    Will I have to pay last year back if they dont find me in favor ( I know broad question)?? The form however is asking about this new benefit year nothing about last year

    Look I am reasonable and intelligent human being. No way in heck I would leave even psedudo decent job in this economy and there is no way in heck I would cheat anyone out. My friends tell me that since you were already getting benefits for last year and approved for it, your old company had the chance several times to deny it. Thats not your issue and you did filed unemployment as you saw fit, however with the new benefit year and your old company doing bad financially I am sure they are cracking down and where ever they can save money.


    Thanks for anyone and everyones help. I just want to make sure that I am doing the right thing.

    A

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: of Eligibility

    Here's the problem.

    You were not laid off. You quit, and your resignation was accepted early.

    Yes, it should have been caught earlier. But in every state, unemployment claims are coming in, in record numbers. Due to budget crunches, there are fewer adjusters processing claims. So there are going to be occasions when things slip through the cracks. I'm quite sure that at the time your benefits were initially approved, your employer was screaming bloody murder. I would have. The difference is, I would have shouted until I got someone at the UI office to listen to me. Your employer evidently gave up until another opportunity - just now - presented itself.

    Yes, it is possible that you might be required to pay back the benefits you received. In that case, you can apply for a waiver. It might or might not be approved.

    Until my crystal ball comes back from the shop, that's the best i can offer.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Unemployment Eligibility

    Research your unemployment laws in your state. In California, if you give notice and you are let go early and not paid for the remainder of your notice, then the employer is the moving party and you will be considered terminated.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,357

    Default Re: Unemployment Eligibility

    Quote Quoting Chelebelle321
    View Post
    Research your unemployment laws in your state. In California, if you give notice and you are let go early and not paid for the remainder of your notice, then the employer is the moving party and you will be considered terminated.
    For wage and hour purposes, I agree with you.

    However, I would need to see some case law to agree that this is true for unemployment purposes. Can you provide any cites?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Unemployment Eligibility

    Quote Quoting PattyPA
    View Post
    For wage and hour purposes, I agree with you.

    However, I would need to see some case law to agree that this is true for unemployment purposes. Can you provide any cites?
    Here you go Patty:

    http://www.edd.ca.gov/UIBDG/Voluntar...ing%20Party%29

    specifically: "If the employer will not allow the claimant to continue work, even though the claimant wants to, then the employer is the moving party."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Unemployment Eligibility

    The employees actions were the cause of termination. The only thing altered by the company would be the acceleration of the end date.

    from the link:

    Before a leaving may be said to be "voluntary," the claimant must have been the "moving party," defined for our purposes as the person who places into motion the chain of events that is responsible for the termination of the employment relationship
    The only arguable point is the three weeks the employer did not allow the OP to work. Other than that, it was the OP's actions that placed into motion the chain of events that led to the termination of the employment.

    and then, further under that same section:

    Both Parties Unwilling to Continue

    When both parties are unwilling to continue the employer-employee relationship, the one who moves to sever the relationship first is considered the moving party. Little if any consideration should be given to which party initiated the conversation; the decision should be concerned with which party actually, through words or actions, severed the employer-employee relationship.
    I believe this is still a voluntary quit.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Unemployment Eligibility

    And CA laws cut no ice in IL. CA employment laws are in many respects quite different from those of the rest of the US.

    I can see the state allowing UI for the remainder of the OP's notice period, minus any waiting week. But given the circumstances described above, I can only see it as a volutary quit beyond that.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Unemployment Eligibility

    Ok, maybe I am not understanding the ambiguity of which the EDD is famous for.

    In Precedent Decision P-B-37 the Appeals Board held that in determining whether there has been a voluntary leaving or a discharge under section 1256 of the code, it must first be determined who was the moving party in the separation. If the claimant left employment while continuing work was available, the claimant was the moving party. If the employer refused to permit the claimant to continue working, although the claimant was ready, willing and able to do so, the employer was the moving party.

    I guess it's fruitless to pursue this argument if IL law is different from CA law--- but here is the link to that decision: http://www.cuiab.ca.gov/precedent_de...Numerical.shtm

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Unemployment Eligibility

    There are 50 states and 50 sets of UI laws. No state's UI regs are applicable in any other state.

    I don't recall saying that the EDD was ambiguous; simply that you cannot apply CA law in any state but CA.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Unemployment Eligibility

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post

    I don't recall saying that the EDD was ambiguous; simply that you cannot apply CA law in any state but CA.
    I didn't say you said it, I said it. I have done tons of research and sometimes it's really hard to figure out exactly what they are trying to say.....that's all I'm saying. I am pretty sure though, that in California..... if you quit and your boss doesn't let you finish your 2 weeks and doesn't pay you that you are considered terminated. I know I've read it on one of the gov websites, but I just don't have the time nor desire to find it since we are talking about Illinois anyway. I did come across this though on a Lawyers Website:

    The Unemployment Appeals Board has held that an employer who discharges the claimant prior to the effective date of the claimant’s intended resignation, and who pays no wages after the last date of work, is the moving party in the separation.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Unemployment Benefits: Unemployment Eligibility
    By Chrisco90 in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-07-2011, 11:21 AM
  2. Unemployment Benefits: Unemployment Eligibility
    By monkeymadness in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-14-2010, 04:57 PM
  3. Unemployment Benefits: Unemployment Eligibility
    By deronda in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-28-2009, 03:07 PM
  4. Unemployment Benefits: Eligibility for Unemployment
    By pickelballqueen in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2009, 02:41 PM
  5. Unemployment Benefits: Unemployment Eligibility While On WC?
    By kws in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-16-2008, 09:38 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources