Hey all, I'm back! Sorry this response is so late. I'll catch up on any replies since I left but first, the update I promised. I did get a call from someone at the DOL who cleared up the confusion after getting my letter requesting clarification on where my claim stands so I knew how to proceed.

They said they made the decision to deny back in December but right after that, they saw the remaining documents that came in so they withdrew that decision and continued reviewing my claim. So the person who said in January that my claim was on hold pending review and that it would take another month or so was correct. I was just never informed that there was a denial before that happened (either because the letter wasn't sent or it was sent and I never got it).

At the end of that period, after reviewing all of the documents, they made the decision to deny again, but the person who said my claim was denied back in December didn't know there was activity on my claim after that. Even another person from the DOL I spoke to for clarification gave me the wrong information and said that no one looked at my claim after the December date.

So they confirmed that people weren't on the same page with what was actually happening with my claim and they allowed me to request a hearing. With that settled, I focused on the determination and asked if they could give me more information about why I was denied. The copy of the original letter said I didn't provide compelling evidence but since that was based on them having incomplete documentation, I wanted to know what the reason for denial was after reviewing everything.

They said there were two reasons. The first is that I need a signed letter from my doctor stating that he told me to quit and they asked if I can get that. The second is that in his opinion, I quit without talking to my employer about the problem first. I'll post again in a minute to talk about that and answer the replies I got.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm aware that unemployment insurance isn't needs based. That's a non-issue. In spite of attempting to have the confusion cleared up, I did read through the unemployment insurance law cited to better gauge how they may have determined I "quit without good cause" after I was told that was the determination. I also went through sample case judgments to bookmark any that seemed relevant to my claim.

I don't have experience going through the system or working for it, but it doesn't mean I can't understand the language of the law that should be driving their decision and what points to consider or that I'm not taking into account the fact that I don't know what kind of people or system I'm dealing with. The fact that I don't know is why I'm posting here. To get feedback and guidance from people who've seen these claims and hearings play out.

I also looked over the sections regarding voluntary quitting prior to submitting my claim, so it was important to know why they made the decision they made. Otherwise, I'd just be guessing at which specific aspects of "good cause" I'd have to address at a hearing that apparently weren't adequately addressed in my claim. Logical is the only way I can approach something like this because getting emotional about it is pointless. If the state cared how I feel, I wouldn't be in this mess to begin with lol

The issue with getting a doctor's note is that I didn't quit because the doctor told me to (even though he did tell me I shouldn't be there if I was reacting that badly). I quit because I was too sick to stay and my employer wasn't addressing the issue. When I was diagnosed, I wasn't anticipating quitting yet because I still thought they might fix the problem or offer other solutions, so I had no reason to ask the doctor to write a letter telling me to or to even be thinking about it. I was just concerned about my health. Lesson learned.

The issue with getting a letter from him now is that he wouldn't remember me at this point. He's not my primary care physician. He's the doctor I saw when I left work during my most severe respiratory attack because he runs an emergency care center I was able to get to in less time than it would have taken to get to the nearest hospital. Once the examination and testing was done, my history was taken, questions were asked, and he gave me the diagnosis and prescriptions and his recommendation to remove myself from the environment causing the reaction, that was it. I never saw him again.

I submitted all of the related medical records when I filed the claim, but if a letter is what they want, I likely won't have that. So I'll be looking through prior cases as well as the law again to get an idea of how to best make the case of the apparent medical need to leave without requiring an implicit direction documented by letter. Any ideas on that are appreciated!

- - - Updated - - -

On the opinion that I quit without talking to my employer, that one may or may not be tricky because the only proof I have that I continued to follow-up in spite of my employer already indicating they weren't going to do anything about it are the emails I sent through my state email (which no longer exists) and the internal calls I made from my state line (which aren't stored) up until the time I gave up and resigned. The only things I can back up on paper were already submitted.

I said I left out a lot in my original post, but I was very detailed in outlining what happened in my claim, when the complaints were made, what my employer's response was, the union involvement, my employer's response to that, and the remaining leave I took for additional recovery time before resigning. To them, it didn't meet their requirements. Maybe to the appeal judge, it will. I don't know.

What I want to go back and highlight in sample cases and the law is any mention of the length of time considered appropriate between the employer's failure to resolve the issue and you quitting because it might help me understand how on Earth they could think all of what happened (which was an ongoing battle lasting a year) amounted to me not talking to my employer before I quit.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote Quoting comment/ator
View Post
Things to think about for the hearing, OP, would be, "Did you try to resolve the problem before quitting?" as in did you ask to be transferred to another department or another location? Also, did you have any other employees in your department who were having health issues related to this situation? Did you discuss with your union and your human resources what accommodations might be available for you to help you deal with the mold issue and your subsequent health issues? Were you the only person who was suffering from such terrible problems related to the mold in the walls?
I don't want to post so much information here that I'd be even more identifiable but I'll try to answer. Transferring to another location was discussed but wasn't possible for my job and the way I outlined that part in the claim, I felt it met the requirements regarding when a transfer isn't considered a reasonable solution by the DOL, but I'll look over it again.

There were other employees (in-house and visiting) affected by the issues. No one in-house was affected to the same degree that I was. The air quality issues cited (aside from the mold concern) were always present and had been an ongoing complaint by other employees. No one ever took it seriously enough to get the union involved, but some did make enough of a stink about it that the ones in charge of our agency's property affairs decided to have the carpet steamed in case that helped (that was a year or so prior to all of this).

When I got the union involved for my issue (which was primarily the suspected mold), said employees submitted testimony to the problems and how long they've been going on in addition to individual surveys the union requested done by all employees frequenting/housed in the location that confirmed a number were having issues. At the time, I couldn't have the surveys/statements because they were private information to be submitted without influence, but I plan to contact my union to request copies.

An interesting thing (to me) is that aside from finding the air quality conditions were poor, several issues were actually cited to be in violation of state regulation and building codes. The report with that detailed info was already submitted with my original claim. Some of the issues were also cited by the state inspector when he did his annual inspections.

There were no accommodations that could be made. Transfer wasn't an option and due to the security of what I worked with, telecommuting from home was also not an option. The only option short of me working in a plastic bubble was for the air quality issue to be fixed and while some in the agency felt it should just be done to get it over with, others just didn't want to spend any money doing it and chose to argue instead that nothing was wrong or ignore the issue all together.

The only recommendation made by the union was to try purchasing an air purifier, which I had already done (and which obviously couldn't address an air quality issue present in an entire open office building).

Most of these points were touched on in the original claim but I know that I'll have to go back over everything and tighten it up/add what might make the case stronger. Here's my question about the hearing: Is the point for the appeal judge to make their own decision independent of the decision the DOL made or is the point for them to decide if they agree with the DOL's decision according to the reasons they made it?

For example, if the appeal judge doesn't agree with the DOL's determination on the points they made, but decides I should be denied for an entirely different reason the DOL didn't think was a problem, I'd still get denied, right? Or would they not be looking at anything other than what the DOL found relevant?