Ohio Unemployment Disallowed Due to Lack Of Qualifying Weeks-Appeal 2nd Time?

[Isabelle_2014]

I was laid off from my job in January 2013 and recalled on November 20, 2013. I worked full time from November 20, 2013 until May 31, 2014 then was reduced to part time from 5/31/14-6/16/14, laid off effective 6/16/14. My unemployment claim was denied due to:


"The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has DISALLOWED the claimant's application for unemployment compensation benefits dated 06/12/2014. The claimant did not have at least twenty qualifying weeks of employment that was subject to an unemployment compensation law or did not earn an average weekly wage of at least $233 before taxes during the base period 04/01/2013 to 03/31/2014,as required by Section 4141.01(R)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code.This decision is related to qualification for regular UC benefits. If an application for Extended Unemployment Compensation benefits has been filed, a separate decision will be issued concerning eligibility for Extended Unemployment Compensation benefits."


I looked up ORC 4141.01 (R)(1) and find it to be a bit confusing. :/

"(1) "Benefit year" with respect to an individual means the fifty-two week period beginning with the first day of that week with respect to which the individual first files a valid application for determination of benefit rights, and thereafter the fifty-two week period beginning with the first day of that week with respect to which the individual next files a valid application for determination of benefit rights after the termination of the individual's last preceding benefit year, except that the application shall not be considered valid unless the individual has had employment in six weeks that is subject to this chapter or the unemployment compensation act of another state, or the United States, and has, since the beginning of the individual's previous benefit year, in the employment earned three times the average weekly wage determined for the previous benefit year. The "benefit year" of a combined wage claim, as described in division (H) of section 4141.43 of the Revised Code, shall be the benefit year prescribed by the law of the state in which the claim is allowed. Any application for determination of benefit rights made in accordance with section 4141.28 of the Revised Code is valid if the individual filing such application is unemployed, has been employed by an employer or employers subject to this chapter in at least twenty qualifying weeks within the individual's base period, and has earned or been paid remuneration at an average weekly wage of not less than twenty-seven and one-half per cent of the statewide average weekly wage for such weeks. For purposes of determining whether an individual has had sufficient employment since the beginning of the individual's previous benefit year to file a valid application, "employment" means the performance of services for which remuneration is payable."


I filed an appeal thinking that since I had worked 18 weeks during the alternate base period (4/01/13-3/31/14) and had earned 3X the required minimum earnings during the 18 week period that I would be eligible. The appeal was denied with the same verbiage as quoted above. I have until 8/06 to file a 2nd appeal but am wondering if there are any other provisions in the law that would help my argument and/or if I even have a chance of being approved?

There were 5 weeks remaining on my previous claim for unemployment, would I be able to draw that? Thank you in advance for any assistance you are willing to provide.

 

[commentator]

There is really not much you can do except wait for the quarter to change in October and see if you have qualifying wages then. Unemployment is based on the wages made in the first four of the last five completed quarters back from the date filed.

You filed a claim in June, 2014. The alternative base period would be April, May and June, 2013, July, August and September of 2013, Oct, Nov and Dec of 2013, Jan, Feb and March of 2014. They said you did not have sufficient wages to set up a claim. When you looked at your earnings statement, did you see any wages that you made during these quarters that were not included? From out of state, perhaps? Were you working then?

There's really not much of an appeal to having insufficient wages in the base period to set up a claim. Unless there are wages that have been incorrectly reported or that are not showing up on the wage determination, it is what it is. Also, in order to qualify, you must have wages in at least three of the four quarters. In other words, no more than one totally blank quarter. Also if the reduced wages you were drawing were very much reduced, you might have qualified for partial unemployment while you were drawing it.

But you ask if you can draw any more from your old claim. The answer must be no, or they would not have tried to sign you up on a new claim in June. A claim is good for one year only from the date it is filed. If you have not already drawn out the weeks in the claim, after that year passes, with no extensions in effect at this time, there simply isn't anything you can draw. There isn't any appeal that will cause you to have more wages in the base period than you have.

But when you are monetarily ineligible, you are allowed to file a whole new claim when the quarter changes, whcih you were able to do as of July of this year. If you file in July, after the quarter changed the first full week of July, you'd have gotten the same results as the "alternative base period."

The three times the amount you read about is called
'qualifying wages.'' if you had a claim to set up, you would have had to have the re-qualifying wages to begin drawing it. but if you just do not have the wages to set up a claim, having three weeks doesn't help.


Try again in October if youre still out of work, and maybe there'll be a change in base period that will qualify you, but the amount will probably be tiny, even if you have one. So I suggest that in your situation, forget the appeals. No one is trying to cheat you, theres a formula, and if you don't have sufficient wages, you just dont have them, no matter how much you may need the money.

 

[Isabelle_2014]

Thank you for taking time to reply, I do appreciate it. No, I didn't have any other earnings elsewhere. What I'm having trouble understanding is the statement that I'm "monetarily ineligible". The minimum earnings required is $233 weekly (20 wks)=$4660. I earned $806 weekly (18 wks)=$14,508. I earned more than three times the required minimum yet I'm "monetarily ineligible"? So apparently the requirement is that you have to have worked 20 weeks AND (not "OR" as stated in the determination notice) earned the minimum required earnings. Correct?

Again, thank you

 

[commentator]

The wages have to be distributed into the four quarters in a sufficient amount. in other words, you can't have made the entire amount in one, or even two of the quarters. In some state systems, missing or blank quarters will result in less weeks of benefits, your claim sets up for 19 weeks or 13 weeks instead of the full 26 weeks, etc. But believe me, there's something, somewhere, in all that Ohio unemployment techie jargon that's disqualifying you based on the wage records they have collected on you. They just don't make mistakes in the way it's calculated, because it's calculated by a computer system that does nothing else all day. And they don't overturn this decision unless there's a possibility of incorrect wage reporting. Unemployment insurance is strictly on their unemployment laws, based on the data they've collected, isn't based on your need or your income.

 

[Isabelle_2014]

Okay, I understand. Thank you again!

 

[Chyvan]

There is really not much you can do except wait for the quarter to change in October

I disagree. She filed in JUNE. Had she understood what the denial was really telling her she should have applied on or after JULY 6. That's when a more recent quarter change happened. If they applied the same logic in July as they did in June, her alternate base period would be July 2013 Jun 2014 and all of her earnings from Nov to June 2014 will be available for the establishment of a claim.

I think she should apply right now. You'll get your benefits about 8 weeks earlier by not waiting.

Actually, under the circumstances because I hope you've been filing weekly claims, ask for backdating. Also, depending on if your appeal was a real appeal or a redetermination, go ahead and appeal again stating that "they should have been more clear in the decision that you could/should have applied on July 6 and would have been monetarily eligible." There's a really good chance then, you'll get paid for all the weeks had you just known what was happening to you. You can also mention that use of the word "or" vs "and" in the determination causing you confusion, and causing you to waste time on an appeal instead of just refiling when the quarter changed. Even if that argument fails, you'll still get benefits starting from now less any waiting week.

 

[commentator]

I do believe that you are wrong about what you are saying here. When she requested the alternative base period for the claim she filed in June, that gave her a calculation based on the same qualifying wages she would have had if she had filed in July. And it appears, though neither of us can see her monetary determination, that she did not have the wages to qualify in July. And I'm betting, from what I'm hearing her say and the dates in the last few months that she says she has worked, that she will not have qualifying wages using the alternative base period for a claim she filed in July.

It's not a secret formula. If it appears she would have enough wages in the next quarter to set up a claim, most anyone she deals with in the system will be happy to tell her this. Since she had no claim to set up in June, she would be able to file a new claim anytime after the quarter changed in July. But she's going to get the same results as she got in June, and adding another very low quarter as the alternative base in July isn't going to change the wages she has.

And no, in this particular situation, where a person is NOT monetarily eligible, there is no claim established, so there is no way they can be filing weekly certifications for benefits while waiting for an appeal and expecting back pay. The amount of money in her claim base period isn't going to miraculously change. She has been trying to argue with the calculation of her eligibility based on the correct wages and as I said, that's not a mistake they make.

"They should have been more clear on the decision that....." really? This is based on a calculation, not a subjective decision. There's no argument that "they" should or should not do anything. No one was obligated to tell her anything except that according to the the calculation as it is done in this state, there weren't enough covered wages to set up a claim. They're not interested in your arguments related to "or" versus "and" in the determination.

I might advise a person differently if there were missing wages in the monetary determination, or wages from another state, and there was some possibility of there being monetary eligibility when these wages were added. But if what this person has to deal with is correct, these are the wages and the quarters she has worked in the past year and a half, and it sounds like there's just not enough covered work here to set up a claim. And requesting backdating would only change the quarters when she was filing for benefits.

 

[Chyvan]

When she requested the alternative base period for the claim she filed in June, that gave her a calculation based on the same qualifying wages she would have had if she had filed in July.

That is the mistake you are making. https://jfs.ohio.gov/unemp_comp_faq/faq_elig_definitions1.stm

She didn't request the alternate base period in June. It was automatically used because she didn't qualify using the standard base period. For a claim filed in June, OH's standard base period uses
January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 from the top table. From the monetary determination, the state used
April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014. That reflects the state already apply the alternate base period in June. In July at the quarter change, you are right that a July claim would have a standard base period of April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014, however because she wouldn't have qualified, they would have applied alternate based appropriate for a July filing of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. That would have captured all her Nov to May 31 full time wages and been just over 26 weeks.

I believe that when she appealed the state stuck with a June 12th filing date, and all the calculations were correct for that filing date. They never said boo to her that filing on July 6 or after would make all the difference in the world.

 

[cbg]

Chyvan, before you make a total fool of yourself, please be aware that you are talking to someone who has many years experience working FOR the UI commission and who knows the system quite well from the inside out.

And your qualifications are, what, exactly?

 

[Chyvan]

And your qualifications are, what, exactly?

That I know how to read a base period table and an alternate base period table, and know that filing on or after July 6 will in all probability get this claimant a benefit.

 

[cbg]

That you think you know how to read one, you mean.

 

[Chyvan]

That you think you know how to read one, you mean.

Did you read the table for yourself?

She filed on 6/12/14 and the determination from the first post used a base period of 4/13 to 3/14. The only way for that to happen was that the alternate base period was already used. Had it been the regular base period the decision would have referenced a base period of 1/13 to 12/13.

Had she filed a new claim on or after July 6 (and she still can), the regular base period would again be 4/13 to 3/14 (same as alternate for a 6/12 filing), but since it would have again resulted in no benefit, the state would have used a different alternate base period for a July 6 or later filing of 7/13 to 6/14.

The logic to wait a quarter was spot on, it's just that Commentator is off a quarter. It happens. So instead of beating me up, double check the table for yourself and help this person get benefits about 8 weeks earlier at a minimum. If she choses not to ask for backdating because of the confusion then so be it, but if you don't ask the answer is an automatic no.

 

[commentator]

I agree that in my first post, I should have suggested that the poster file again. Because I am not looking at her monetary determination, and am not able to look at the available wages, I do not know for sure that there are insufficient wages in the quarters used in July, which would be the first four of the last five completed quarters. But I strongly suspect as much, because when the poster requested the alternative base period, that would use the quarters, dropping off the oldest, and using instead the last four completed quarters, this is the same as the quarters that would be used to set up the claim after the quarter change in July anyway.

And she did not have sufficient wages to set up a claim in June, even using the alternative quarter wages. When the quarter changed, and if she files a claim after the first full week in July, she will be told she does not qualify monetarily, and be told again to request the "alternative base period." And if there happened to be enough wages in the additional quarter they pick up (April, May and June, 2014) to qualify her, like I said, I strongly doubt it, from what she's saying, but yes, if she just now files a new claim, and using the alternative base period, she does happen to have wages enough to set up, she can request a back date to the date the quarter changed the first week in July.

But I sort of doubt they'd grant it. It is not a responsibility or a requirement that they tell people about the quarter change, or that they should file again when the quarter changes. It's not valid to appeal and complain that you weren't told. As I said, most people in the system will gladly tell you this if they feel like there's a chance you might have more wages and a claim when it changes.

I'm sure someone from the agency told her to request the alternative base period for the claim she filed in June, it doesn't happen automatically. If the system has not got sufficient wages to set up a claim from the base period they are using, you can request the alternative base period be used. They don't do it automatically.

Quote:"She filed on 6/12/14 and the determination from the first post used a base period of 4/13 to 3/14. The only way for that to happen was that the alternate base period was already used. Had it been the regular base period the decision would have referenced a base period of 1/13 to 12/13."

I assume that what the OP quoted to us was the rejection she received from the alternative base period determination. She said they said "the same thing" and essentially, they did, except for the quarters used in the base period. But I can't imagine that they would've automatically used the alternative base period in the first determination. It just doesn't happen.

And in the new alternative base period, they will use the most recent completed quarter, the one we have just completed, which is the April May June wages. In this case, I am quite suspicious, based on when she says she has worked and when she has been off, that this would not help her much. Since she says she was working part time some of the time, this is apt to be a pretty bald quarter, and I am not sure she's got the wages to set up a claim, but it never hurts to check. That's all there is to it.

You are telling her how she can appeal and say they should've told her this and that. I suppose she could appeal and ask for a backdate if she has a claim.

Appealing a monetary determination is possible only if there are wages to be added. You can't appeal the way they calculated it, because that's state law. As I said, they don't make mistakes in this calculation, and if there is any chance that the person will be eligible on down the line, the people who work there will usually tell them to take that chance. I know I always did, but it wasn't something anyone was required to say. In fact, we were sometimes criticized for giving people the impression they'd have a claim later when they didn't.

If you are doing it on line, you may not be told a lot or have a lot explained to you, but you can certainly inquire. Since no claim has been set up for her, she can file a claim again any time again that she wants to, you don't need to formally drop your appeal or whatever.

She can file one today. You're right, I should have told her this, instead of telling her to check again in October. When told she doesn't have monetary eligibility for a claim, which she will be, she can request the alternative base period be used on this claim.

She can also request,( though there's no sure thing that it will happen) if there IS enough money for a claim using the alternative base period, that they backdate her claim to the week after the quarter changed. You're right, it doesn't hurt to ask. But if the wages aren't there, they aren't there. No appeal to that.

 

[Chyvan]

I worked full time from November 20, 2013 until May 31, 2014 then was reduced to part time from 5/31/14-6/16/14, laid off effective 6/16/14.

"The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has DISALLOWED the claimant's application for unemployment compensation benefits dated 06/12/2014. The claimant did not have at least twenty qualifying weeks of employment that was subject to an unemployment compensation law or did not earn an average weekly wage of at least $233 before taxes during the base period 04/01/2013 to 03/31/2014,as required by Section 4141.01(R)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code.This decision is related to qualification for regular UC benefits. If an application for Extended Unemployment Compensation benefits has been filed, a separate decision will be issued concerning eligibility for Extended Unemployment Compensation benefits."

since I had worked 18 weeks during the alternate base period (4/01/13-3/31/14) and had earned 3X the required minimum earnings during the 18 week period

The bolded section is a red herring. If you use the benefit calculater, and you don't have 20 weeks of work you get this error message "You must have worked at least 20 weeks to establish a claim." You don't even get to put in any dollar amounts. Therefore, it was confusing to the OP to see the mention of the $233, and she went through her math. The math suggests that her earnings for 11/13 to 3/14 were "3X" $233 X 18. So it's a safe bet she was making $699 per week.

Then when you run the calculator using July 6 through Oct 4, saying "no" to the 20 week question, and then yes for the alternate period. It then prompts for number of weeks and dollar amounts. Because instead of just 18 weeks, she now has a whole extra quarter where she worked approximately 11 of those weeks. About 9 of those were still full time. So she has 27 weeks to work with at $699. That's $18873 and when you plug in the numbers, she gets a benefit of about $350 wk, and because she worked 27 weeks, she'll get benefits for 26 weeks. However, those parttime weeks can have a real negative effect on her average weekly wage.

I'm sure someone from the agency told her to request the alternative base period for the claim she filed in June, it doesn't happen automatically.

Well, hopefully she comes back and clarifies if she was told to or not, and for now we can agree to disagree. My experience is that if you don't qualify using standard/regular base period then the states automatically attempt to use the alternate. The key words are "don't qualify." There can be times when you'll get a MUCH better benefit had you known to wait until the quarter changed. The state tries to get you a benefit, not the best benefit. The only exception to this that I know is NY which will send a letter telling a claimant the different amounts and let them chose which one they want base period they want to use.

To back things up, from this pdf https://unemployment.ohio.gov/PDF/HowOhioUCBenefitsAreCalculated.pdf

It says, "If you did not work for 20 weeks or you did not
have sufficient wages within the regular base
period, ODJFS will use this alternate base
period to determine eligibility."

Doesn't say you have to ask for it. Sounds pretty automatic to me.

 

[cbg]

No, chyvan, I didn't. But then I'm not the one who's setting myself up as an expert on all things unemployment, and over a real expert at that, on the basis that I once prevailed in an appeal, either. Which as far as I can tell is your sole basis for considering that you know anything about unemployment.

I know some things about unemployment, but commentator knows more. I'll defer to her knowledge on any aspect of a UI question. You, not so much.