Recently, one of my clients was denied unemployment benefits that were due to her based on the second extension approved by the government. The reason that the claimant was denied benefits was the conflicting information she was receiving about her role in making sure that she continues to receive the benefits. The information pamphlet about the second extension stated that the claimants who were otherwise eligible for benefits did not need to do anything in order to continue receiving the payments. However, the Employment Development Department (EDD) clerk, who handled my client's second extension process, was under the impression that a claimant has to re-apply in order to qualify for the second extension. This mistake caused my client to be left without benefits for a period of approximately 5 months. 

At the appeal hearing, the administrative law judge quickly recognized the department's fault and promptly issued an order (see attached below) reversing the denial of unemployment benefits, and awarding the claimant retroactive payments for the above period if time.
Add Comment
 
 
I was happy to find out that yet one more of my clients was awarded unemployment benefits after my rather unpleasant confrontation with the representative for the employer.  The employer, after telling my client that they did not need her services any longer and after hiring her replacing while forcing my client to train her replacement, actually stopped paying her while she was training the new employee. At the appeals hearing, the employer dared to argue that they never terminated the employee. Luckily, the administrative law judge did not buy it and found for the employee, awarding her unemployment benefits retroactive. You can read the full unemployment appeal analysis and holding below:
Add Comment