My question involves unemployment benefits for the state of: California

I voluntarily quit my full-time job and applied for UI in Feb. 2011 but was denied because I was in school full-time and quit. I was also working part-time at a second job 5-10 hours a week.

I believe I was an exception to the voluntarily quitting rule but didn't know it at the time and the phone interviewer failed to inform me that I may qualify for California Training Benefits because my school program is a technical training program through Work Force Investment Act. I also did not receive any pamphlets about CTB.

Legislative Exceptions to the General Rule :
"Section 1267 of the code, continuing the work would require termination of the retraining or training course, and the employer does not or cannot adjust the individual's hours of work to allow continuation of the work and the retraining or training course."

My full-time job switched me to work Fri-Sun night shift but I would have to clock out Monday morning then go straight to school after working all night. I did this for a month and had asked for a different shift but was told there were no openings so I quit otherwise I wouldn't be able to continue school.

It's the end of the year and I finally got a different job a few months ago which recently laid me off and I applied for UI again and this time received a pamphlet about CTB. My first interviewer for this claim said I would not qualify because I'm in school full time and unable to accept full time work. I inquired about CTB and was scheduled for a second interview. On my second interview for this claim I was told that since I'm through Work Force Investment Act I automatically qualify and I should've qualified back in Feb. She said I automatically qualify for this claim but can appeal the first claim in Feb. to try and get backpay since my reason for not appealing in the first place was because they failed to advise me about CTB. And it would be one claim or the other... I decided to appeal the first claim and believe I have good cause for extending my time requirement to appeal it....Do you think I'd win my appeal??

1. Good Cause

Title 22, Section 1326-10(a), provides conditions under which prescribed time periods may be extended.

The department shall, at the request of the claimant, extend the period prescribed for the filing of a new, additional, continued or reopened . . . claim . . . if the department finds that the failure of the individual to file any such claim . . . within the prescribed time was due to good cause, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

(3) He or she reasonably relied on misleading, incomplete, or erroneous advice given to him or her by personnel of the department, or relied on the failure of the department to perform an affirmative duty to provide advice reasonably necessary for the protection of his or her rights and the understanding of his or her duties relating to the claim or registration for work. Reliance is reasonable if all of the following conditions exist:

(A) He or she acted reasonably in informing the department of pertinent facts and of the need for specific advice as to his or her rights and duties.

(B) The department’s advice was intended by the department to be the basis of his or her conduct or he or she reasonably believed the advice was so intended, or he or she reasonably relied upon the department which failed to provide advice reasonably necessary to the protection of his or her rights or the understanding of his or her duties.

(C) He or she was not aware that the department’s advice was misleading, incomplete or erroneous, or through no fault or inexcusable neglect on his or her part was not aware of the true information concerning his or her rights or duties.