Dow+150.25up+1.52%
10,058.64
Nasdaq+24.82up+1.17%
2,150.87
S&P+13.78up+1.30%
1,070.52

MSN Money video

Video on MSN Money
This video requires the installation of the free Adobe Flash Player. Click here to download.
More video on MSN Money . . .
1 in 4 must fight for jobless checks © Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg News /Landov

Extra7/7/2009 12:01 AM ET

1 in 4 must fight for jobless checks

As if getting laid off weren't bad enough, many unemployed workers are finding that their former employers are challenging their benefit claims. Here's how to beat back a challenge.

By Gina Roberts-Grey
MSN Money

Unemployment is at a 26-year high, and Americans are filing claims in near-record numbers.

Just days after losing their jobs, a huge portion of the newly jobless get a second nasty surprise: At least 25% of those who file unemployment claims will find that their former employers have challenged their rights to benefits.

"It felt like not only was I not valuable enough to be kept as an employee but that my former employer truly didn't care about me at all," says Roger Sheridan, an out-of-work midlevel manager in Chicago.

In the past 15 years, the number of employer challenges has more than doubled.

"High-turnover industries like retail, transportation and restaurants are fighting every claim because their unemployment rate assessment is so high," says Linda Konstan, a Denver consultant on employee issues and legal compliance.

Yet few workers may know they have the right to appeal or that their chances of success are pretty good if they move quickly.

More on MSN Money

The unemployment picture in your state © MSN Money
The unemployment picture in your state
Use our interactive map to find out where the recession is hitting hardest, and find out how much each state pays in unemployment benefits.

How the system works

For small-business owners, contesting claims can be crucial to company survival.

"I have to fight every one," says small-business owner Raul Diaz of Mobile, Ala. "I always feel bad fighting to prevent someone from collecting when I know they need it. But I also have to fight to keep my business open."

Only employers pay unemployment taxes: a federal tax that tops out at $56 per worker a year and a state tax based on an employer's claims history and how likely that industry is to face job losses. Rates vary widely by state and by industry, but a company's "experience rating" can make a huge difference in its bottom line.

The minimum tax rate in Minnesota, for example, is 0.56% of the first $26,000 in wages, and the maximum is 10.7%. That's a difference of more than $2,500 per worker.

When workers are laid off or fired, they apply for benefits, affirming they are able to work and are actively seeking jobs. The state looks at the reasons for the job losses and notifies the workers of benefit approval or denial.

Lack of work is the most common reason for new claims, and that usually means weekly checks will begin to flow after the state's required waiting period. Benefits are typically denied if a worker quit voluntarily or was fired for misconduct.

Once the state has decided whether benefits are warranted, either side can appeal.

Your likelihood of receiving benefits varies greatly from state to state, depending on your state's eligibility requirements and legal standards around denials. For instance, if you live in Montana, you're much more likely to receive benefits than someone in, say, Georgia. More than 70% of Montanans who lose their jobs collect a check; in Georgia, that figure is just 34%. Nationwide, about 44% of the unemployed received benefits in 2008, according to the Department of Labor. In addition to those whose claims were denied, some simply never filed, and others, such as the self-employed, were ineligible.

Video on MSN Money

Summer camp for the jobless © MoneyTalks
Summer camp for the jobless
At LaidOffCamp '09, unemployed creative professionals look for work, connections and maybe a little hope.

It's about the bottom line

With most employers already running on skeleton crews, you might think there wouldn't be time to fight unemployment claims. Think again. Denver consultant Konstan says there's big money at stake for employers who win a challenge. "Each claim won can save an employer anywhere from $30 to $100 annually (in reduced premiums per employee). Or more, depending on how many claims are charged against them," Konstan says.

Some employers challenge every claim. Some outsource the task to companies that specialize.

Konstan says that not only are employer challenges increasing but that claims of misconduct now account for the majority of cases. Urban Institute economist and researcher Wayne Vroman says 16% of claims are challenged on misconduct grounds and 10% as voluntary separations.

The number of employers winning challenges varies by state, largely because the rules on what constitutes misconduct vary. Misconduct can include claims of insubordination and criminal behavior such as theft, sexual misconduct or even violence. The most common claims of misconduct, Konstan says, include comparatively minor infractions such as excessive tardiness and sick days or spending too much time on personal calls or Web surfing.

"You have to wonder if those whose claims were denied realized they're able to appeal benefit denials -- and possibly have the denial reversed," Konstan says.

Continued: Getting what's yours

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 161
Monday, July 06, 2009 10:43:16 PM

My employer contested my unemployment claim and I won.  My goofball manager wound up looking like a fool in front of the judge --- first he tried to put me on a "two week performance improvement plan" and then they tried to say I misused company equipment but my company is an engineering firm, our client owns the equipment and they had no problems from me in that area.  The judgment in my favor credited me with a well documented explanation of my termination (including snide remarks my manager had made about my pay grade before the termination) and it also said that employer was unable to provide a specific incident of equipment misuse.

 

If anyone is reading this and is the subject of a layoff / termination I would strongly support what this article says.  Fight tooth and nail for your unemployment pay, it is yours.  I am currently interviewing for several new positions and am able to do so with the confidence that right is on my side.  Open-mouthed

Monday, July 06, 2009 10:48:29 PM
In Oregon, employees pay a tax for Unemployment Benefits.  Just another example of how the news media doesn't research their claims, and looks stupid!
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 5:52:48 AM
In many states employees pay a tax for unemployment, but, that doesn't always mean that you'll qualify for benefits. Your comment is another case of when the uninformed attempt to look smart, and look stupid!
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:38:15 AM
My wife had a case in which the employer came to court with a number of people who perjured themselves and testified that she had quit her job rather than fired.  In spite of the lack of evidence the state ruled with the employer.  In looking at these cases we'e seen a huge injustice in this area and also in many areas of employment law.  Getting a lawyer to come to court to represent an employee is nearly always equal to the cost of the benefits which can be received  and since the state is bias to the party that pays the taxes it is very unfair.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:50:59 AM
This country is looking more & more like a third world country. When the middle class is gone, so will America be gone. But that is what Obama wants.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:54:33 AM
Typical ripoff businesses and CEO's.  I hope nobody works for them in the future and I hope that those who do rip them off for everything they can.  That might equal the score!!
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:07:02 AM

I got screwed and shafted out of my unemployment benefits I was entitled from a termination in early 2008. It was not a case of willful negligence or carelessness on my part, but the inability for me to perform the work to the quality standards of my employer, nothing else. I had never missed a scheduled day of work except to have moved in to my new apartment. Even my supervisor appreciated my strong work ethic. I don't take responsibilities to my job lightly.

 

I went through the entire process including submission of an appeal to my state Court of Appeals who denied my day in court solely on the "substantial evidence" the Department of Workforce Services stated to them. My fifth amendment right had been violated before this point and not once did I have the opportunity to put the Department on trial. They had the greatest culpability because they dropped the ball in processing my claim, something even the case worker who violated my right to remain silent admitted had to have occured (she lacked stating to me that anything I said would be used against me) Although I had pointed these things in my lengthly petition to the State Court of Appeals, they still denied my hearing. To make matters worse, the Department under existing law wanted me to pay back what monies I had received initially, although it was proven through their own investigation that my claim was non-fraudulent and indeed VALID! The only reason I didn't have to pay it back was yet another error... The Payment Control Office started billing me before the appeals process had been finished. This required another hearing, but surprisingly, I won that little concession. I've lost a potential $4,000+ that would've help my situation. My governor and both representatives have been written 4-page letters concerning this matter just last month and I won't hold my breath that it will get the attention it deserves, but I could be wrong. Considering the weight this article gives on the present state of the economy - I could well suffocate in that regard.

 

Although I did get another job last August, it's not enough for me to get by so I have to change my career and will move out of state pending what changes in the law or support if any I'm afforded by my representatives and governor. If none is received, at least they can't say I didn't give them the opportunity to act and I won't have to contribute to an agency with real problems they refuse to address.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:23:23 AM

Where in Gods name did you get the idea that Obama wants to get rid of the middle class?  If you look at the Republican record, going back to Reagan, you will find out who is trying to protect the rich and screw the middle class.

 

If you have any proof that Obama is trying to get rid of the middle class, please provide the information so that the rest of us will know the truth.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:26:34 AM
Far too many people feel unemployment is an entitlement.  The states have historically approved the vast majority of claims.  If that is changing it is because the money is starting to vanish. 
The biggest mistake our country has made is to extend unemployment to a full year.  When unemployment was only paid for 13 weeks, most people found a job in week 12.  Now that unemployment can be drawn for 52 weeks, people will not be finding work until week 51. 
Unemployment is just another example of the welfare state.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:36:07 AM
The middle class suffers no matter who is in control. Republican or democrats, they all share in raping the middle class, and they always have. If we want our government to feel middle class America, their salaries should be reduced to $50,000 and no free trips on tax payers. This would change their perspective some.
1 - 10 of 161
To add a comment, pleasesign in