Why would someone file an unemployment appeal?

[bsblady01]

She put down that she was told they were going in a different direction and she didn't know why she was let go. Perhaps they thought she was too old for the job. (Does the company see what she wrote? That might have ticked them off a bit). But, it is a valid concern that she considered was the reason.
After she filled out the initial claim, the unemployment dept. talked to the company and concluded there was no wrongdoing.

I would not have put what she put on the application that may be part of the issue. I would have put something like new owners decided to bring in their own help.

 

[Bec3b1g]

She put down that she was told they were going in a different direction and she didn't know why she was let go. Perhaps they thought she was too old for the job. (Does the company see what she wrote? That might have ticked them off a bit). But, it is a valid concern that she considered was the reason.
After she filled out the initial claim, the unemployment dept. talked to the company and concluded there was no wrongdoing.

If she implied in her response that the company let her go because of her age, the company may have felt the need to defend itself. Age discrimination is against the law and they may be worried about a potential lawsuit from your MIL.

And, yes, there is no confidentiality in the claimants forms. The company has access to everything provided by the claimant.

 

[Azrael]

If she implied in her response that the company let her go because of her age, the company may have felt the need to defend itself. Age discrimination is against the law and they may be worried about a potential lawsuit from your MIL.

And, yes, there is no confidentiality in the claimants forms. The company has access to everything provided by the claimant.

That's sad that she can't write what she felt without it having to come back at her. Without knowing the whole situation or being there myself, I believe there may have been some age discrimination considering she had a solid attendance and performance record for 15 years. If an employer can't articulate why they are letting someone go, then it is open for interpretation/speculation by the employee. The previous owner who MIL worked for said the new person working in my MIL's role is in her 30's. What else is someone at 70 years old supposed to think at the time of being let go?

 

[bsblady01]

That's sad that she can't write what she felt without it having to come back at her. Without knowing the whole situation or being there myself, I believe there may have been some age discrimination considering she had a solid attendance and performance record for 15 years. If an employer can't articulate why they are letting someone go, then it is open for interpretation/speculation by the employee. The previous owner who MIL worked for said the new person working in my MIL's role is in her 30's. What else is someone at 70 years old supposed to think at the time of being let go?

if they let her go over her age then she can sue them

 

[Bec3b1g]

That's sad that she can't write what she felt without it having to come back at her. Without knowing the whole situation or being there myself, I believe there may have been some age discrimination considering she had a solid attendance and performance record for 15 years. If an employer can't articulate why they are letting someone go, then it is open for interpretation/speculation by the employee. The previous owner who MIL worked for said the new person working in my MIL's role is in her 30's. What else is someone at 70 years old supposed to think at the time of being let go?

Oftentimes, employers will keep reasons vague in an effort to avoid potential liability.

 

[Azrael]

Oftentimes, employers will keep reasons vague in an effort to avoid potential liability.

Yes, good point that I didn't consider. But then they shouldn't be trying to fight the unemployment that was already determined to be rightfully given to her. That poor woman is going through so much already by not having a job and trying to live on $150/week. I just want to tell the owners to leave her alone already!

 

[bsblady01]

Yes, good point that I didn't consider. But then they shouldn't be trying to fight the unemployment that was already determined to be rightfully given to her. That poor woman is going through so much already by not having a job and trying to live on $150/week. I just want to tell the owners to leave her alone already!

can she not get social security at her age

 

[Bec3b1g]

Yes, good point that I didn't consider. But then they shouldn't be trying to fight the unemployment that was already determined to be rightfully given to her. That poor woman is going through so much already by not having a job and trying to live on $150/week. I just want to tell the owners to leave her alone already!

Your MIL can get a copy of her file and that will give her a better idea of the company's position so she can prepare for the hearing.

 

[Azrael]

Your MIL can get a copy of her file and that will give her a better idea of the company's position so she can prepare for the hearing.

Thank you. I will tell her to call and request this. She is having a lot of anxiety about going to court. I don't think she has ever stepped foot in a courtroom before. This is very unsettling.

 

[Juliet25]

I'm so sorry for your MIL. From what you said, it sounds like she has every right to her UE if the company let her go through no fault of her own. They're likely appealing it just because they figure they have nothing to lose by doing so. If she sticks to the facts, I'm sure she'll come out fine. The people that decide these cases can see through bs. Good luck!

 

[tvguy]

if they let her go over her age then she can sue them

Yes she can sue them. It is something i considered when I was let go from my last job after a change of ownership. 3 labor attorneys told me I had a decent case. But there are some realities to consider according to the lawyers.. A case like that can take 10-12 years from start to final resolution. File such a suit can make you unemployable because new employers are leery of hiring people who are suing their old employer.
But they offered me a nice severance package that included a clause that I not sue them. But it also included a clause that they would NOT contest my unemployment claims.
I literally was hired in a new job 3 hours after being fired, and working in the new job 7 days after being fired.

 

[bsblady01]

Yes she can sue them. It is something i considered when I was let go from my last job after a change of ownership. 3 labor attorneys told me I had a decent case. But there are some realities to consider according to the lawyers.. A case like that can take 10-12 years from start to final resolution. File such a suit can make you unemployable because new employers are leery of hiring people who are suing their old employer.
But they offered me a nice severance package that included a clause that I not sue them. But it also included a clause that they would NOT contest my unemployment claims.
I literally was hired in a new job 3 hours after being fired, and working in the new job 7 days after being fired.

she is 70 years old so at this point in her life she should not have to be worried about working

 

[tvguy]

she is 70 years old so at this point in her life she should not have to be worried about working

I agree. But isn't a requirement of getting unemployment that you be actively seeking work?

 

[msjprincess]

Yes, good point that I didn't consider. But then they shouldn't be trying to fight the unemployment that was already determined to be rightfully given to her. That poor woman is going through so much already by not having a job and trying to live on $150/week. I just want to tell the owners to leave her alone already!

She's not collecting Social Security?

 

[wilkeliza]

OP has your mother applied for social security? She might actually be elligible for bothe unemployment and social security.

I wonder if the previous employer also might believe your mother is unfit to work since a stipulation of unemployment is that you are actively seaking full time work.

Was your mother a full time employee?

 

[manning]

If she got no written warning and no formal discussion of her performance was held so she could correct any problems, she'll probably win. This appeal is probably pro forma. Companies try to avoid dismissing people without cause specifically for this reason-they have to pay unemployment. If she just goes and tells the truth and brings any documentation they provided with her, it will likely be OK. If they have cause and can document it, this is where the challenge will be. Lawsuits are far more expensive than unemployment-they will take the path of least resistance.

If I remember if you work in a fire at will state the employer has the right to fire you for no reason at all. A smart company will just say you're being let go and don't give a reason.

If there is a contract of employment the company has to follows what is covered in the contract. With our company they had to give you two written warnings then let you go.

Talk about office politics, I worked for two idiots who tried to fire me. One of the idiots gets onto the elevator with me. One of the passengers says to me "hi Jeff how you doing say hi to the wife" We all get off and the idiot (amazing he couldn't figure it out" turns to me and says "do you know him" well yes. That guy was the president of one of our subsidiaries. The never bothered me again. I transferred to another department. Within 6 months they were let go. They didn't come under the contract. Once they left that department experienced a huge increase in productivity.

Office politics, grrr

 

[Azrael]

She still has to work full-time, because Social Security had to go to mounting medical bills that my father in law had. She does have to apply each week to several jobs in order to maintain her unemployment benefits.

 

[SouthFayetteFan]

I'm not sure this would apply here but depending on whether the sale of the company was an asset purchase or if they purchased the stock the new ownership could be attempting to push the burden of the unemployment claim on the prior ownership (especially if it was an asset purchase). I believe Unemployment rates employers pay are set based on the number of claims they have. Where this backfires on the government is if the previous ownership closed down the company after selling the assets then no company is left to bear the burden of the claim and the rates to all companies eventually has to increase to cover it.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Thank you. I will tell her to call and request this. She is having a lot of anxiety about going to court. I don't think she has ever stepped foot in a courtroom before. This is very unsettling.

If it will help to relieve her anxiety, tell her this hearing is not likely to be as big of a production as she's imagining. If it's anything like my hearings* were it's just going to be herself, her former employer, and the mediator sitting on folding chairs around a table in a small conference room. Witnesses may also be present if either side chooses to bring them to support their case. She's not going to be in front of judge and jury being called to the stand or anything. Still stressful, but not as intimidating.

Unless it's different in your state than mine (Maryland), they're not going to cut off her benefits until everything is settled, so she can still collect the money while she's going through this process. If they ultimately rule that she was ineligible to receive those benefits then she will have to repay it to the state. But, she's got some time. She's not going to be cut off next week. If they rule in her favor she won't have to do anything else; the money is already hers.

If she's not happy with the outcome of the first hearing she can appeal (but so can her former employer). Once the case reaches the Appeals Board she may not even have to attend the hearing(s). That was the case for me. The Appeals Board hearings were done behind closed doors, listening to the recordings of the previous hearings. They let us know how they ruled by mail.

I don't know if people tend to hire lawyers in these situations but I didn't. I just did a hell of a lot of research into the process to figure out how to build the strongest case and represented myself. (I won.) I quit my job which meant that my argument had to center around proving that I had good cause to do so. Your mom was fired so she's probably in an easier position because, broadly speaking, people who are fired are entitled to collect unemployment benefits. Circumstances where they aren't generally revolve around employee misconduct. Remember, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If your mom's former employer is going to allege misconduct they are going to have to prove it. Your mom will have the opportunity to defend herself, of course, but she doesn't have to get all frazzled and worry that the outcome of the hearing hinges on her ability to put together a convincing defense on the fly. The outcome of the hearing depends on her former employer's ability to prove misconduct. Things like occasionally forgetting to turn out the lights at the end of the day or screwing up some paperwork are mistakes, not misconduct. Misconduct is more along the lines of being willfully negligent -- repeatedly being late or not showing up at all, not following the company rules, endangering other employees, insubordination, theft... If the employer is going to make those claims against an employee then they need to be able to back that up with some kind of proof like timesheets, written warnings, security footage, etc. Otherwise, it's just their word against hers. She could say, "Nope, that never happened" or "How could I know that was a problem if no one ever told me?" If your mom is confident that they don't have proof of any misconduct or paperwork in her file showing a pattern of ongoing issues which had been discussed with her, then she can probably relax. In any case, it would be good for her to have things like her timesheets and employee reviews on hand if she thinks they could help her during the hearing.

*Pleural, because my case was a complicated mess that involved multiple hearings, multiple appeals, equipment failure that resulted in a redo hearing, and it dragged on for more than two years.

ETA: I now realize this is about your MIL, not your mom. Sorry, but I'm not going back to make the corrections. Please accept these flowers as my apology. Lol.

 

[Allison]

Any unemployment cases I am aware of are conducted over the phone, at least initially. A courtroom is not involved in any way.

Companies do this because it is standard procedure for many.