HR 4213 Fixes UI Benefit Consequences for Part-Time or Temporary Workers
Roberts, Senior Manager of the TALX Government Relations group explains the “fix”
in HR 4213 related to part-time or temporary work.
federal UI extension legislation signed by President Obama on July 22, 2010 (HR 4213),
contains a provision to “fix” an unintended consequence regarding regular UI
benefits and federal EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) in instances where
claimants had part-time or temporary employment. Under the newly enacted legislation,
states have four options to continue payment of EUC instead of regular UI in certain
instances. Please note, the state agency chooses the option; claimants do not
choose the option.
unintended consequence can occur when an EUC claimant can establish a second
benefit year and is eligible for regular UI due to part-time or temporary work.
Under the second benefit year claim, many claimants were qualifying for
a lower weekly unemployment benefit amount than they received for EUC or their original
regular UI claim, because the part-time/temporary earnings were lower than their earnings
used to establish the original claim.
order to “fix” this unintended consequence, Section 502 of HR 4213 provides for the
following options for continued payment of EUC instead of regular UI
an individual has been determined to be entitled to emergency unemployment compensation
with respect to a benefit year,‘‘(B) that benefit year has expired,‘‘(C) that individual
has remaining entitlement to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to that
benefit year, and‘‘(D) that individual would qualify for a new benefit year in which
the weekly benefit amount of regular compensation is at least either $100 or 25 percent
less than the individual’s weekly benefit amount in the benefit year referred to in
subparagraph (A), then the State shall determine eligibility for compensation as provided
in paragraph (2).
State shall, if permitted by State law, establish a new benefit year, but defer the
payment of regular compensation with respect to that new benefit year until exhaustion
of all emergency unemployment compensation payable with respect to the benefit year
referred to in paragraph (1)(A); ‘‘(B) The State shall, if permitted by State law,
defer the establishment of a new benefit year (which uses all the wages and employment
which would have been used to establish a benefit year but for the application of
this paragraph), until exhaustion of all emergency unemployment compensation payable
with respect to the benefit year referred to in paragraph(1)(A); ‘‘(C) The State shall
pay, if permitted by State law— ‘‘(i) regular compensation equal to the weekly benefit
amount established under the new benefit year, and‘‘(ii) emergency unemployment compensation
equal to the difference between that weekly benefit amount and the weekly benefit
amount for the expired benefit year; or ‘‘(D) The State shall determine rights to
emergency unemployment compensation without regard to any rights to regular compensation
if the individual elects to not file a claim for regular compensation under the new
key points to keep in mind about the “fix” and the options: 1) A “fix” is only applicable
to claimants whose regular weekly UI benefit amount in the new benefit year would
be at least either $100 or 25% less than their original weekly UI amount; 2) the legislative
provisions are not retroactive and only apply to claimants whose benefit years expire
after the date the legislation was enacted (July 22, 2010); and 3) only state UI agencies
may choose one of the four available options, not claimants; a state must only choose
one option and apply it to all applicable claimants.
This weblog is sponsored by TALX.
Recommended For You
A violation of your organization’s drug-free policies can seem like an open and shut case, but is it? Monthly Video […]
A picture is worth a thousand words, but what if it’s a telephone hearing? Monthly Video Series: 5 of 12 […]
Case Analysis: Claimant was absent from the work area and found “resting” in locker room Background A company discharged its employee […]
Case Analysis: Claimant did not report her absences in order to have them covered by FMLA Background A company discharged […]