No unemployment for DD?

[disneysteve]

Our daughter was laid off last month and filed for unemployment. She was notified today that she doesn't qualify. The qualification period they look back at ended 9/30/19. Up until June 2019 she was working for a non-profit. I know they handle unemployment differently. I reached out to the administrator to find out what the deal is. According to the notice, she didn't have 20 weeks of eligible employment on the books. Apparently her time at the non-profit didn't count and she had only been at her current job for 6 weeks by 9/30/19.

I'm really not familiar with how unemployment works. Why do they base it on what you were doing 6 months ago and before?

[kork13]

I was actually wondering today about how unemployment worked as well. I'm presuming that employers pay into some unemployment insurance pool? Is that a legal requirement, or an option (as in, do all employers pay into it)? I'm guessing that it's a mandatory thing, but that raises the question of at what point does that requirement come into play? Is it based on company size, or time in business, or otherwise? And then as DS referred to, how does someone actually qualify for unemployment checks?

I'm guessing that alot of those questions are state-specific... but it was just another random thought while I was out on my run today.

[TexasHusker]

Our daughter was laid off last month and filed for unemployment. She was notified today that she doesn't qualify. The qualification period they look back at ended 9/30/19. Up until June 2019 she was working for a non-profit. I know they handle unemployment differently. I reached out to the administrator to find out what the deal is. According to the notice, she didn't have 20 weeks of eligible employment on the books. Apparently her time at the non-profit didn't count and she had only been at her current job for 6 weeks by 9/30/19.

I'm really not familiar with how unemployment works. Why do they base it on what you were doing 6 months ago and before?

I know different states have different look-back periods in calculating unemployment. I think Texas looks back at the most recent 4 quarters. I am sorry about that. I am not sure why employment at a non-profit would have any bearing on eligibility.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

the company has to pay into the state unemployment so that's why working quarters matter and it factors into how much weekly you get. Your employer has to agree that you qualify

[disneysteve]

I know different states have different look-back periods in calculating unemployment. I think Texas looks back at the most recent 4 quarters.

She would have been fine if they looked at the most recent 4. They don't include the last 2 so she didn't qualify since the year she worked at the non-profit apparently didn't count.

[Scallywag]

I may be wrong but I believe that the LAST company that she was working for / was laid off from has to approve her unemployment & they may have only offered it to laid off employees who had worked for them for at least 20 weeks? Unemployment isn't like social security where your total working years / credits matter but employer specific as I believe that it is the last employer's *unemployment insurance tax* payout to laid off workers that is termed "unemployment" -- not government benefits. Again, I may be wrong. She can always appeal - she has nothing to lose.

In the interim, does she have savings to cover her housing, utility & transportation costs? Does she have any emergency funds? I'd encourage to take any job that comes her way to tide her through this period, as a roof over her head is more important than a "satisfying" job. I am so sorry.

[disneysteve]

I may be wrong but I believe that the LAST company that she was working for / was laid off from has to approve her unemployment & they may have only offered it to laid off employees who had worked for them for at least 20 weeks? Unemployment isn't like social security where your total working years / credits matter but employer specific as I believe that it is the last employer's *unemployment insurance tax* payout to laid off workers that is termed "unemployment" -- not government benefits. Again, I may be wrong. She can always appeal - she has nothing to lose.

In the interim, does she have savings to cover her housing, utility & transportation costs? Does she have any emergency funds? I'd encourage to take any job that comes her way to tide her through this period, as a roof over her head is more important than a "satisfying" job. I am so sorry.

That could be the issue, if her last job didn't approve it. That's a really lousy system if a job she left almost 10 months ago gets to decide whether or not she can collect. She's been at this job since August, maybe July. But apparently that doesn't count for anything.

Fortunately, she doesn't "need" the pay. She lives with us. She does pay us monthly but I'm happy and able to skip that for now. She owns her car outright and has no student loans or other debt. And she's got far more in savings than the average American. We've taught her well.

[Scallywag]

No, the job that just laid her off - the swim school - needs to approve her unemployment benefits as their insurance (not the prior jobs) has to bear her unemployment payout. She needs to talk to the swim school & appeal the denial with them, not the preschool.

[MonkeyMama]

Bummer!

It's because non-profits are exempt from taxes; that includes unemployment taxes. They don't pay into the system, so their employees don't get the benefit. I understand this from the employer side but never really thought about it from the employee side. I would guess most people have no idea. But could make for a nasty surprise if you do work for a non-profit.

In our state it has nothing to do with the employers; the state determines the lookback period.

[disneysteve]

No, the job that just laid her off - the swim school - needs to approve her unemployment benefits as their insurance (not the prior jobs) has to bear her unemployment payout. She needs to talk to the swim school & appeal the denial with them, not the preschool.

Oh. Well that definitely doesn’t make sense. The whole reason they laid everybody off is to allow them to file for unemployment.

There is still the issue that her time at the preschool isn’t counting towards her eligibility. That’s the bigger issue. By 9/30/19 she only had 6 weeks at the swim school but needs 20 on record. The rest were at the preschool.

[Scallywag]

Oh. Well that definitely doesn’t make sense. The whole reason they laid everybody off is to allow them to file for unemployment.

There is still the issue that her time at the preschool isn’t counting towards her eligibility. That’s the bigger issue. By 9/30/19 she only had 6 weeks at the swim school but needs 20 on record. The rest were at the preschool.

The preschool is highly likely out of the picture here (unless I am dead wrong). Unemployment insurance is part of payroll taxes and is likely not handled by HR but by payroll / accounting as this is a TAX. The person doing the lay off may not have been aware of your daughter's exact situation - that is the only thing i can see here. Unless she was given anything in writing regarding unemployment with her severance notice, it was just a verbal assurance and it may not even be from the concerned authority (payroll / benefits) but from HR. It might be best to contact a lawyer but if she appeals it would be with the swim school, not the preschool. Hopefully I am wrong.

Edited to add:

Ok, so apparently employees in NJ may be asked by the employer to pay into unemployment (this, I did not know) as NJ is one of three states that allows employers to do this (the other two are PA & AR). You can read more here:

https://eligibility.com/unemployment...unds-come-from


Ask your DD to check all communications & hiring paperwork from the employer to see if she was asked to do this. Hopefully, she wasn't but again, she really really really needs to speak to the swim school.

BTW, in my past lives as a gainfully employed individual I have *never* come across an employer who encourages laid off employees to seek unemployment (as it increases their tax rate), so I am VERY suspicious now. She needs to check her paperwork and call the swim school STAT.

[disneysteve]

The preschool is highly likely out og the picture here (unless I am dead wrong).

In order to get benefits she had to have worked 20 weeks during the lookback period which ended 9/30/19. During most of that period she worked at the preschool. She had only been at the swim school for 6 weeks at that point. So her time at the swim school wasn’t enough to qualify. The time at the preschool had to count, which it apparently didn’t.

[Scallywag]

In order to get benefits she had to have worked 20 weeks during the lookback period which ended 9/30/19. During most of that period she worked at the preschool. She had only been at the swim school for 6 weeks at that point. So her time at the swim school wasn’t enough to qualify. The time at the preschool had to count, which it apparently didn’t.

20 weeks with the SAME employer, not across multiple jobs. This doesn't work like social security!

[disneysteve]

20 weeks with the SAME employer, not across multiple jobs. This doesn't work like social security!

Oh! I didn’t get that. That makes sense then. She wouldn’t qualify in that case. She’s worked there since July but benefits are only based on the period ending 9/30.

[Scallywag]

Oh! I didn’t get that. That makes sense then. She wouldn’t qualify in that case. She’s worked there since July but benefits are only based on the period ending 9/30.

Steve, I'd still appeal. She needs to look through her paperwork and see if they took anything out for unemployment insurance. If they did (and she paid into the system) then she needs to appeal.