How do you prove you deserve unemployment compensation?

July 20, 2005 5:27 PM

Unemployment benefits. Long story short, although I was making production goals and coming to work on-time, dressed appropriately &c, my supervisor thought I "didn't like" my job and would be "more suited" for something else. So I was given the "quit or be fired" option. They said they would not contest my application for unemployment benefits (I'm in Illinois). I filled out the forms, explaining that I was fired for not "being suited" to the job, despite making goals. However, I've gotten a letter saying there are "questions" about my claim and I have to be intereviewed. How am I supposed to handle this?

I wasn't discriminated against--just fired because I didn't "fit in." Technically, I was allowed to quit so that I can say in interviews (and they will verify) that I was not fired. But because you cannot collect unemployment when you quit wihtout cause/because you feel like it (rather than quit because of hostile work environment or failure of employer to accommodate disability), I said on the form that I was fired. Again, I was assured by HR that they would not contest my unemployment claim and that I would be able to collect. Naturally, I'm angry and panicked andjust about everything else. Anyone know anything about this? How to answer this question for the bureaucrat that will be calling me?

posted by anonymous to law & government (15 comments total)

I don't know about Illinois, but if it were Washington I'd say: Anytime there is anything out of the ordinary they want to "interview" you. Usually once you explain yourself it goes OK. I think if you tell them what you told us it would be OK. I know you are feeling very sensitive and aggrieved right now, which is totally natural, but if the employer said they would not contest your claim you are probably on solid ground.
posted by matildaben at 5:47 PM on July 20, 2005

You can not collect unemployment if you are Fired or Quit, you must loose the job with "no fualt to yourself" if the employeer said they would not contest the papers you should have just said you were laid off...

Have you attempted to find another job yet?
posted by crewshell at 5:54 PM on July 20, 2005

I went through that. usually the "we have a few questions" is a pretty routine thing. In my case, my employer said I was eligible for a pension which was not the case and they needed to clear that up. I think what crewshell means, or my understanding, is that you can't get unemployment if you are fired with cause, though if you are fired without cause [as it seems like you were? I guess it's more appropriately called "laid off"?] you can get it, as you can if your job vanished, or many other things.

In short, the interview part of the unemployment tango should be no big deal. If your former employer has said they aren't going to contest it, then just go forward and answer the questions and be as honest as you can.
posted by jessamyn at 6:29 PM on July 20, 2005

If you quit after receiving incorrect advice from your employer, I believe -- at least in some countries -- that equates to being fired for the purposes of unemployment benefit or unfair dismissal laws.

I know in Australia if you're pushed into quitting by being given crapwork or no work, or basically just poorly treated until you're so miserable that you leave, it's considered being fired.

Personally I've been bullied into quitting ("being fired from here will affect your career" -- which was far from true, turns out being fired from that place was a mark of honour) and I've had my position dissolved out from under me. I think it's companies that are more worried about firing people than people are worried about being seen as having been fired.

Sounds like you could say to any potential employers that you were conned into quitting. Though whether that reflects poorly on you or your previous employer is a question I can't answer.

What you should have done is held out until you had another job to go to, but it's unfortunately a bit late for that.
posted by krisjohn at 7:12 PM on July 20, 2005

Know your rights before you go in there. Speak with a lawyer if you can.
posted by lilboo at 7:38 PM on July 20, 2005

I live in Canada, I quit my job in February due to adverse working conditions and was able to collect EI without any problems whatsoever. If bureaucracies are pretty much the same here and in Illinois, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Just explain in the meeting what happened: that you were given the choice to quit or to be terminated without cause, and you chose the former in order to avoid the stigma of termination. I can't foresee them giving you any grief about that. It was, essentially, a constructive dismissal, after all.

When I applied for benefits (online), I wrote about five thousand words on the reasons behind my quitting; it wasn't just a simple form to fill out. It sounds like the interview you're going to have is the oral analogue of my "explain in this space" essay. Worry not.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:24 AM on July 21, 2005

In the U.S., at least the parts I am familiar with, there is a real distinction between being fired and being laid off (a distinction the local major newspaper can't seem to figure out). I assume (with no basis for doing so) that anonymous is in the U.S.

To collect unemployment, you must usually be laid off. If you quit, or if you're fired, you must convince the unemployment people that leaving the job wasn't your fault or your choice. That's why Anon has to go and explain why they should pay.

Anon should probably have claimed to have been laid off. Why did the employer not do that, anyway? A verbal promise to support an unemployment claim is probably worth the paper it's printed on.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:31 AM on July 21, 2005

It has been my experience that each instance goes to "arbitration" and then after consideration a decision is made. The unemployment folks gather all of the info (i.e., the questions for you) and your previous employer.
posted by Jikido at 6:48 AM on July 21, 2005

I assume (with no basis for doing so) that anonymous is in the U.S.

Anon did said "I'm in Illinois".
posted by raedyn at 7:03 AM on July 21, 2005

If your employer lied to you about not contesting your application, or simply screwed up by not having the right person answer the phone or letter inquiry verifying the circumstances of your separation, you might be out of luck in terms of getting benefits.

Employers don't control UI eligibility, the state does, and they definitely don't have the right to use UI as a form of backdoor severance for employees they persuade to quit before they're fired. If the employer put the "wrong" information on the form, that's a bell that can't be unrung.

However, if that's the case, you'd be within your rights to ask for some severance, and UI might help you pressure the company if the company doesn't agree to do so on its own, since it was the company which abused the UI process in the first place.

That said, you ought not jump to any immediately worst-case-scenario conclusions. There are many questions that UI administrators can ask that have nothing to do with the circumstances of your separation from employment. They might ask about past employers (who are liable for your benefits under certain circumstances) or about current educational, volunteer, and other unpaid activities (which can impact your eligibility due to the requirement that you be "totally" unemployed to be paid UI).
posted by MattD at 7:30 AM on July 21, 2005

The reason they're calling you is because you don't automatically qualify for unemployment benefits even if you're fired. You qualify if you're laid off, but not if you're fired. What if you're drunk on the job and get fired, for example? That's firing with cause. You shouldn't get benefits for that.

Whenever you file a claim for unemployment, the employer is notified. They contribute money every year and it goes into an account. If you file and qualify, part of your check comes out of that account. Too many claims on an account (it varies by state) and the rate the employer pays goes up. That's why a lot of them will contest claims.

What it sounds like is that you filed, the unemployment people contacted the employer and they didn't contest the claim. That's good. You're 3/4 of the way there. Just tell them the truth and you should be fine.
posted by Atom12 at 8:30 AM on July 21, 2005

Although the law varies from state to state, generally you can be disqualified for unemployment benefits only if you were let go for something that was your fault -- say, dishonesty.

Simply answer "they didn't like my work" or "they told me I wasn't right for the job."
posted by KRS at 11:23 AM on July 21, 2005

Where do some of you get this stuff? Unemployment -insurance- has variance for state by state but almost always the basic question is "are you unemployed through no fault of your own?" Apparently many of you want to include incompetence or inability to do a job in that definition but it rarely does include that - usually there has to be willful misconduct, meaning you have repeatedly violated known company standards.

The reasoning behind this is that you can't start showing up at 11:30 and leaving at 2:00 or not showing up at all and say you were fired. This is why so many companies work so hard to document transgressions. But being disliked or not very good is not a willful transgression.

I -do- concur with all the people who told you not to worry, though you want to avoid getting into a discussion about this chance-to-quit nonsense: state you were told in no uncertain terms that you were no longer welcome to be employed there and you left amicably. The job of the people talking to you is to keep payouts (and therefor expenses) down and if you use the word "quit" you're not gonna be collecting: never ever ever state one word to the contrary that you were told you could no longer work there.

There's no reason to feel the slightest twinge of guilt or concern about this. It is, as I said, unemployment INSURANCE. Every single paycheck you have received has been debited a small percentage to pay into this system and you are completely within your rights to collect back out. You did not cause yourself to become unemployed, it was thrust upon you. If your tire blew out and you hit a light pole you wouldn't think twice about collecting a car insurance claim, there's no reason to view this any differently.
posted by phearlez at 1:53 PM on July 21, 2005 [1 favorite]

If you have more questions, go check out the state by state links for unemployment information where you can pick your home state and get to their resources. The Illinois one has the link a little hidden but here's the unemployment insurance information. It's explicit about what disqualifies you and you should be fine.

You may be disqualified from receiving benefits because you:

1) quit your job
2) were discharged for misconduct
3) refused suitable new employment
4) were involved in an ongoing labor dispute, or
5) you return to work.

Just don't back off of "I didn't quit, I was told I could no longer continue to work there."
posted by phearlez at 2:01 PM on July 21, 2005

I used to work as a restaurant manager in Illinois and was peripherally involved in two unemployment claims. If a person is fired, they generally qualify for unemployment unless they are fired for significant cause (stealing, doing drugs at work, etc.). And the burden of proof is on the employer, not the employee. We (the employer) lost on both of the claims that I was involved with.
posted by clarissajoy at 6:57 AM on July 22, 2005