Getting Unemployment after being Arrested at work???

[HardWorkingOne]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

I was wondering if this was even legal. At my place of employment, a co-worker was literally arrested and taken out in handcuffs from work after being on the "run" I suppose you can call it, for several misdeamenor warrants. The nature of one of the charges (we found out from looking it up on the county website) made the majority of women who worked there very uneasy and scared to know we had been working with someone like this. He was fired.

Fast forward down the road. Another co-worker we work with ran into ex-employee outside of work and told us that he said "things were great and he was going to let Obama pay his way as he was now collecting unemployment" The co-worker than said that he didn't think he would be able to get it given the circumstances at which he was fired. Ex-employee stated that former employer told his case worker that he was just laid off because he felt bad for him.

This kind of erks me. Well maybe more than it should. Can people collect unemployment after being arrested at work for "dodging" the law? A lot of people who really need it or other types of Welfare get denied and this chump is sitting back collecting people's hard earned tax dollars. Just wondering...

 

[pattytx]

Getting unemployment because the employee is out of work because they were arrested is nuts. If I were that workers' employer, I would have appealed this as far as I could have taken it.

However, the employee who was fired because his boss "felt bad for him" probably would be eligible, because the reason for the separation was involuntary and not for a disqualifying reason. Why, though, boss would feel bad for someone who was working is beyond me.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Getting unemployment because the employee is out of work because they were arrested is nuts. If I were that workers' employer, I would have appealed this as far as I could have taken it.

However, the employee who was fired because his boss "felt bad for him" probably would be eligible, because the reason for the separation was involuntary and not for a disqualifying reason. Why, though, boss would feel bad for someone who was working is beyond me.

Being arrested is not the same as being convicted. There is still a presumption of innocence.

 

[pattytx]

Being arrested is not the same as being convicted. There is still a presumption of innocence.

True, but the employee can be terminated simply on the presumption. I see your point, though, and that's probably why the guy got UI benefits.

Having said that, I also see the OP's point. This guy's termination was completely his own fault and completely within his control. Why should the employer's UI rate go up because of that?

 

[commentator]

commentator

Well, in the first place....that inflammatory statement about 'letting Obama pay my way and I'm drawing my unemployment" which was received about third hand here may or may not be true. Certainly not something you could say I know for a fact this guy was approved to draw. People do lie, you know. Especially when they've been embarrassed at work by being arrested and hauled away.

That said, if the person was pulled out of the worksite, taken down and arrested, posted bond, and is now awaiting a court date, he's still able and available for work right now, isn't he? And as someone said, he has not been convicted of anything. It's probably not the case, but what if this were some huge mistake, he's either the wrong guy, or he's really totally innocent?

The employers can fire him, as they don't want this guy who may be guilty of doing this crime around their other employees, but since the firing has nothing to do with any work related issue such as misconduct on the job, they did not have good work related cause to fire. Therefore, they don't have any reason they can fight the request for benefits. We have an innocent until proven guilty presumption, remember that in looking at his request for benefits, we have nothing except that he has been arrested.

Until he is actually incarcerated, and is at that time no longer able and available and actively seeking employment, he could very well be receiving unemployment benefits. Remember, these will be based not upon government handouts, but on wages that he himself has worked out over the last few years, which were attributed to him through covered employers. So he's not really sitting around on the taxpayer's dole waiting to be punished. Right now he's out of work through his employer's decision to terminate him, not because he chose to be.

I know, I know, he probably chose to do the crime he was arrested for, but this was unrelated to his employment situation.

One thing unemployment law tries very hard not to do is make value judgements outside the framework of their guidelines. A favorite training case often presented is that of the man who murdered his employer, and was able to draw benefits while awaiting trial for the murder. Reason? It was not a job related murder, but occurred based on something that happened off the job.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

This guy's termination was completely his own fault and completely within his control.

I have seen people arrested at work based on a complaint from an ex. I have no way to know if the complaint had merit or not. He came back to work next day, and did not spend any time in jail. Although this could indicate he got off lightly, it could also indicate the complaint had no merit.