In a major victory for claimants and for ULP in 2008, the Washington Supreme Court decided in favor of our client Sara Spain in its June decision, Spain v. Employment Security Department.  The decision was the biggest legal news of the year for ULP.  After a four-year long fight on behalf of Ms. Spain and many other claimants, we convinced our state's highest court that the ESD's interpretation of the "good cause" quit statute was wrong. 

Since 2004, the ESD had interpreted the statutory list of examples of "good cause" as an exhaustive list.  Thus, if a worker quit a job for a reason other than the ten examples listed in the statute, the ESD denied benefits.  This interpretation had never been made prior to 2004, but when the legislature expanded the list from four to ten examples, the ESD changed its interpretation of the list. 

Ms. Spain came to us in 2004 after she quit work for an abusive employer.  The employer routinely called his employees "retards" and other derogatory names.  He periodically threw boxes of nails and hand tools around the office when he was mad.  And one winter day he made the entire crew stand outside in the rain while he berated them for doing a bad job, telling them that he did not care if they got wet and cold.  When Ms. Spain complained, he promised he would change his behavior but failed to do so. 

After Ms. Spain quit in disgust, she applied for unemployment benefits.  The ESD denied benefits, claiming that because her reason for quitting - an abusive, obnoxious employer - was not on the list of ten in the statute, she did not have "good cause" to quit.  We appealed Ms. Spain's case to the Thurston County Superior Court, which held that we were right - the list was not exhaustive and even if the legislature intended to make it so, the legislature had failed to do so.  The ESD appealed to Division II, which reversed and sided with the ESD.  We petitioned for review to the Washington Supreme Court.  After waiting several years and engaging in various procedural skirmishes, we were excited when the Court finally accepted review in February 2008 and set argument soon thereafter.

A quick four months later, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously agreed with our position that the list of "good cause" examples was not an exhaustive list and that workers could qualify for benefits after quitting jobs for reasons not listed in the statute.  The ESD has subsequently issued an "emergency rule" that sought to limit the impact of the Spain decision, but we continue to challenge that rule as well as the ESD's continued limited interpretation of "good cause." 

Though fighting for benefits remains a challenge, the result of the Spaindecision has been that hundreds of "quit" cases have been returned to the ESD for redetermination of benefits under Spain and untold numbers of future claimants will have a better chance at receiving benefits when they are forced to quit their jobs for reasons not listed in the statute.

Myth 1: It's better to quit than be fired

An employer will often offer an employee the "opportunity" to quit, rather than be fired.  Many employees take the quit offer, believing it to be a better resume move.  However, quitting can be difficult for one's pursuit of unemployment benefits because one must  prove "good cause" to quit.  While there are several qualifying reasons for quitting one's job and while the Spain case discussed above brightens prospects, it still is often difficult to prove good cause.  A list of examples of "good cause" for quitting,  though not the only "good causes" that will be recognized by ESD, can be found at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=50.20.050  
    
Myth 2: A worker cannot qualify for UI if he or she was fired

If a worker is a fired, but can establish that it was not due to "misconduct" under the statute, then the worker will likely qualify for UI. 

Myth 3:  Appeals are an impossibly difficult process 

The appeals process exists for the core reason of getting a claimant a hearing.  If one has been denied benefits by the Employment Security Department, it is not necessary to send in a lengthy or detailed letter concerning one's case.  All one needs to appeal is one's name, telephone number, Social Security number, address, signature (it MUST be signed) and a statement that says: "I disagree with this decision.  Please give me a hearing."  After the appeal is properly filed, one receives a "appeal filed notice" in roughly a week or two.  A week or two after that, one will receive a notice of hearing indicating the date and time of the scheduled appeal hearing.  Appeals can be faxed to the ESD @ 800-301-1795.

Myth 4:  A worker is automatically entitled to unemployment benefits because workers pay money into the unemployment system

Many employees feel that they should automatically receive unemployment benefits because they have paid into the fund.  The employee, however, does not pay into the unemployment insurance system: the employer does.  While some economists argue that the employee in effect pays into the system because the money the employer pays to UI would otherwise go to the employee, it remains true that it is the employer who makes payments.  The payments are based on a specific tax rate that is set according to the employer's record of unemployment claims filed against it.  This tax rate is often the reason employers contest employees receiving benefits.

Myth 5:  The employer controls an employee's unemployment benefits

It is a common assumption that the employer determines whether or not a former employee will receive unemployment benefits.  While it is true that many employers often contest an award of unemployment benefits because successful claims may result in an increased UI tax rate, the State's Employment Security Department ultimately decides whether or not one receives benefits.

Myth 6: Unemployment benefits will be paid up until re-employment

Unemployment insurance works similarly to auto insurance, medical insurance, and life insurance in that recipients must meet certain criteria to receive benefits.  Benefits also will end after a specific period of eligibility.  That period in Washington usually is 26 weeks.  Once a claimant has reached that limit, benefit payments will most likely end.  In extremely bad economic times such as our current situation, however, benefits may be extended under two special programs.  One may receive Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), a federal program that pays benefits through the State's ESD for an additional 13 weeks after one's eligibility period has ended.  Second, one may receive additional benefits under the Extended Benefits Program (EB), a state program similar to the federal program that is triggered only under certain economic conditions.  If one reaches the end of one's eligibility period and is still not employed, one should inquire if either the EUC or EB or both programs are in effect.  Once one's eligibility period is exhausted, no more benefits will be paid until one re-qualifies for benefits by being re-employed in qualifying employment for a required number of hours and income.  

Myth 7: When one's self-employment ends, one can qualify for unemployment benefits

People whose most recent work was self-employment do not ordinarily qualify for unemployment benefits.

Myth 8: Unemployment benefits are a form of welfare

Unemployment insurance, as its name indicates, is a form of insurance.  The employer pays the premium through a specific tax rate and if the employer's employees lose their jobs they can often qualify for benefits based on those premium payments.  The amount of money one receives in benefits is determined largely by state regulations but is based on how much money one earned.

Myth 9:  A benefits appeal hearing is an in-person, face-to-face hearing 

In Washington State, the vast majority of appeal hearings are held over the phone in a conference call format.  These hearings, though they are serious legal proceedings, are relatively informal and claimants are allowed to ask the judge questions and to represent themselves or may be represented by others.  Usually all participants are on the phone and not together in a hearing room.

Myth 10: Unemployment benefits are based on one's last paycheck

Generally, unemployment benefits are calculated on a "base" pay period that can extend through the last year.

This article was inspired by and based in part upon this web article:

Carroll, Carol Anne. “Ten Costly Myths about Unemployment Insurance.” Associated Press. 20 Sept. 2005 <   http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8821/ten_costly_myths_about_unemployment.html?cat=17

Jason Arends – Office Manager/Paralegal – 5/08 - Present

Jason Arends is the new Office Manager, having replaced Kevin Bender in a bloodless coup.  Jason moved to Seattle after graduating from Grinnell College in 2005, where he abandoned his farmer roots for a series of office jobs.  Before joining the Unemployment Law Project, Jason worked for a class action settlement agency.  If you’ve ever received a coupon for a free tire inspection as a result of several roll-overs, chances are he had something to do with it.  In his free time, Jason is an avid Ultimate Frisbee player; his team, the Blue Footed Boobies, recently won the Seattle league title.  When not mindlessly chasing a chunk of plastic, Jason can be found watching terrible, terrible movies or frequenting the city's fine arts scene.

Jessica Long-Legal Assistant - 11/08 - Present

Jessica Long is ULP's new legal assistant.  Her interest in the non-profit community and social justice is gathered from her extensive overseas experience.  Prior to ULP, Jessica lived in Kenya where she managed an orphanage and rural feeding program.  She also has work and study experience in Europe, Central America, Africa, and Asia.  Most recently Jessica returned from a year and a half teaching English in South Korea.  Jessica has a BA in International Politics from Western Washington University and is considering a post-graduate degree in either Law or Business.