• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

FMLA/Fired for no call no show for points/ Can I get UI?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

W

Willlyjo

Guest
Are you claiming, Willy, that UI is EVER paid for a week that was not certified? And how does he certify a week that occurred BEFORE he made the claim?

Here's the law:

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/108/06

I trust that you will need no further proof than the statute that says so?
Sorry CBG, but I haven't looked at the statute yet, but I will very shortly. However, of course I'm not indicating that UI benefits are paid for weeks NOT CERTIFIED. The OP certifies for weeks prior to filing his claim by indicating his last day of work at his former employer. This is how EDD figures the waiting period, which is the following week after the last day worked. Then benefits will begin. Rather simple--really. I'm confident your link will be quite similar to what I've posted.
 


cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
So there you go, Willy. I've provided legal back up right from the statutes and regulatory agencies backing up my positions. Feel like doing the same?

Oh, no, I forgot. We're supposed to accept all your pronouncements as gospel with no support.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
See, that's the difference between willy and most of the responders here. We look at the law and then respond - he responds and then pretends to have looked at the law.
 
W

Willlyjo

Guest
So there you go, Willy. I've provided legal back up right from the statutes and regulatory agencies backing up my positions. Feel like doing the same?

Oh, no, I forgot. We're supposed to accept all your pronouncements as gospel with no support.
Bravo!! So you've provided backup to support what you say in your posts. You do realize that your backup simply supports what I've been posting as well, don't you? We're not lawyers here--citing cases and/or statutes isn't always necessary.

I expect that if one doesn't find any of my posts accurate, then they can further investigate to determine if my posts have helped them or not. Most of the time when I even respond to a thread, I know what I'm talking about--like in this thread. ;) Otherwise, I stay away from the thread. :)
 
W

Willlyjo

Guest
See, that's the difference between willy and most of the responders here. We look at the law and then respond - he responds and then pretends to have looked at the law.
You're wrong! I pretty much know the procedures for UI benefits without a need to look at the law. If I am unsure of something, I may look at the law or I won't post. Simple as that.

The bottom line in this particular thread is that I was accurate in what I posted, but yet, you and Zigner made it more confusing for the OP by nitpicking my posts and providing links and cites to particular provisions that are a bit irrelevant. For instance, all this language explaining a benefit year is totally unnecessary. Plain and simple, a benefit year starts when the OP applies for UI. If he has worked enough time to become eligible for benefits, he's in. If not, he hasn't completed a "benefit year". :rolleyes:
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Bravo!! So you've provided backup to support what you say in your posts. You do realize that your backup simply supports what I've been posting as well, don't you? We're not lawyers here--citing cases and/or statutes isn't always necessary.
Ooohhh
Aaahhh

My heart always skips a beat when I see how you dance around with seemingly no care in the world!
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Actually, no it doesn't. You're claiming that the claim will be retro to the last date of work; the statute specifically states that (1) the benefit year starts when the claimant files; (2) no benefits will be paid prior to the start of the benefit year; (3) this will change ONLY when there is a statutory exception.

Show me the statutory exception that says a claimant can receive benefits for a week prior to the time they opened the for any reason other that being unable to get through to the UI office.

And yes, actually, you do have to cite cases and support if you want to be taken seriously. That's why you have no cred here (and believe me, no matter what you think, you don't) and I do.
 

commentator

Senior Member
Oh my goodness, ya leave home for a while, and the house burns down! I always heard that the most wonderful place to get misinformation about unemployment was the internet. Sometimes, that's about right!

In all states, a basic framework is followed for U.I. guidelines. Some points to establish that are the same in all states, with some variances.
The only way you can receive any benefits before you file, is if someone else (the employer) actually files the claim for the whole plant, which they do sometimes. For example, when the company shuts down for a few weeks, and the employer files the claims for those weeks for all affected employees. Or if there is an extremely busy time when the person has made a good faith effort to get in on the call in lines or the internet and they have been able to do so. Then they can make a special request that their claim be backdated to the week before.

Other than that, you can't start drawing a claim until the first week you actually file. It can be anytime during the Sunday through Saturday week, and that is the week they go from (if there is not an active claim already in place.) In many states, the first week of a claim is a waiting week. You CANNOT serve the waiting week until AFTER the claim has been filed. In other words, don't wait a week before you file and then explain to the system that you've served your waiting week. The clock begins the week you file the first claim in the year.

When you file a claim, that day, the system sets up a claim for you based on the first four of the last five completed quarters. This is the usual benefit year. An alternative benefit year can be requested in some circumstances and in some states. This claim draws in any covered employers you have had in the last 18 months, not necessarily this employer. Any and all covered employers (those who have to pay in unemployment taxes.)

When this person files the claim, they'll set it up as of the week she files it. Based on the first four of the last completed quarters. She'll get a statement telling her how much she is eligible to draw and what it's based on. The waiting week, if her state has one, is the first week she certified for after she filed the claim.

No, she does not need to expound on why she got every single point. They will not make any decisions based on whether she is on FMLA or not. FMLA laws, regulations and statutes do not have any bearing on unemployment insurance. The only thing they'll be interested in is exactly what happened, what was her excuse the very last day she was absent, tardy, out without a call in, whatever. If it was one of the days when her child was ill, and she can provide a doctor's statement that she was absent due to the illness of her child, that she had given reasonable notice of this absence, then she'll be approved.

They were obviously wanting to get rid of this woman. She had attendance problems. If they'd fired her after the absence when she was late due to transportation problems or due to not getting there for some other non-illness reason, even if she hadn't maxed out her points by their system, she would not have been approved for unemployment. But since the very last time she was absent, the absence for which she was terminated, was due to illness, she can provide a doctor's statement, she should be approvable. SHOULD, I never say definitely. I never say she'll absolutely be eligible, there are way too many variables.
 
Last edited:

watertown28

Junior Member
Oh my goodness, ya leave home for a while, and the house burns down! I always heard that the most wonderful place to get misinformation about unemployment was the internet. Sometimes, that's about right!

In all states, a basic framework is followed for U.I. guidelines. Some points to establish that are the same in all states, with some variances.
The only way you can receive any benefits before you file, is if someone else (the employer) actually files the claim for the whole plant, which they do sometimes. For example, when the company shuts down for a few weeks, and the employer files the claims for those weeks for all affected employees. Other than that, you can't start drawing a claim until the first week you actually file. It can be anytime during the Sunday through Saturday week, and that is the week they go from (if there is not an active claim already in place.) In many states, the first week of a claim is a waiting week. You CANNOT serve the waiting week until AFTER the claim has been filed. In other words, don't wait a week before you file and then explain to the system that you've served your waiting week. The clock begins the week you file the first claim in the year.

When you file a claim, that day, the system sets up a claim for you based on the first four of the last five completed quarters. This is the usual benefit year. An alternative benefit year can be requested in some circumstances and in some states. This claim draws in any covered employers you have had in the last 18 months, not necessarily this employer. Any and all covered employers (those who have to pay in unemployment taxes.)

When this person files the claim, they'll set it up as of the week she files it. Based on the first four of the last completed quarters. She'll get a statement telling her how much she is eligible to draw and what it's based on. The waiting week, if her state has one, is the first week she certified for after she filed the claim.

No, she does not need to expound on why she got every single point. They will not make any decisions based on whether she is on FMLA or not. FMLA laws, regulations and statutes do not have any bearing on unemployment insurance. The only thing they'll be interested in is exactly what happened, what was her excuse the very last day she was absent, tardy, out without a call in, whatever. If it was one of the days when her child was ill, and she can provide a doctor's statement that she was absent due to the illness of her child, that she had given reasonable notice of this absence, then she'll be approved.

They were obviously wanting to get rid of this woman. She had attendance problems. If they'd fired her after the absence when she was late due to transportation problems or due to not getting there for some other non-illness reason, even if she hadn't maxed out her points by their system, she would not have been approved for unemployment. But since the very last time she was absent, the absence for which she was terminated, was due to illness, she can provide a doctor's statement, she should be approvable. SHOULD, I never say definitely. I never say she'll absolutely be eligible, there are way too many variables.

The problem is I did not take my son to the doctor because it was his second day of the flu. If I had known this was going to happen you darn bet I would have taken him to the doctor even for the simple fact that a paper trail would have started.
Remember, my FMLA is on a "on needed basis" and does not need to be with a doctors excuse because it is written in the FMLA approval that I am authorized for leave to care for a sick child, no doctors excuse needed because of the disability it requires a lot of attention. The paperwork is on file and goes for a year, at which I have to renew it every year.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
None of which changes the fact that you did a no-call, no show. The employer is entitled by statute, and I showed you where, to deny FMLA on that basis. A no-call, no show is a legal and legitimate reason to fire you. Taking him to the doctor would not have made any difference if you still failed to call in.
 

watertown28

Junior Member
None of which changes the fact that you did a no-call, no show. The employer is entitled by statute, and I showed you where, to deny FMLA on that basis. A no-call, no show is a legal and legitimate reason to fire you. Taking him to the doctor would not have made any difference if you still failed to call in.
I know that and you made that clear. What I am point out is for UI
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Sorry if I misunderstood you. Listen to commentator - she knows what she's talking about.
 

commentator

Senior Member
If you didn't take your son to the doctor, you didn't call in, you were absent, you were fired for this absence....then you are going to be way out of luck. Sorry. They do not give a small care about whether or not it was covered by FMLA. Just because you didn't need one for FMLA, that does NOT mean you didn't need one for unemployment benefits. I said that already, I think.

But when you file your unemployment claim, go on and file it, immediately by the way, there's no magic formula, no certain thing you can tell them. All you will be able to do is tell the truth. You may be able to get your doctor to give you a statement saying your son had the flu. Keyword MAY be able to get this from your doctor. If you aren't they do not care why you were absent, you were not absent due to illness with doctor's excuse. That's it. File it anyhow. See how it plays out. You had attendance issues. I do not think your FMLA situation will protect you, or that you will be able to get your job back. I am not at all sure, based on what you've said, that you will be able to get unemployment benefits. But remember, they are two separate issues, being fired while on FMLA, and being approved for unemployment.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top