SSDI recipients should now apply for regular unemployment benefits

A class action challenging the SSDI eligibility ban in Wisconsin that prevents disabled workers from receiving regular unemployment benefits has been filed. Note: A history of the SSDI eligibility ban in Wisconsin is available here.

With the end of PUA benefits after the week ending 4 September 2021, regular unemployment benefits are again the only option available to disabled workers in Wisconsin. The Department had previously concluded that PUA benefits were available to SSDI recipients because of the SSDI eligibility ban for regular unemployment benefits.

SSDI recipients interested in the class action and eventually receiving regular unemployment benefits for job losses that are not their fault need to do two things.

1. File an initial claim and then weekly certifications for regular unemployment benefits. Do not let Department staffers talk you out of filing these initial claims and weekly certifications. You will be denied, and you should appeal that denial. At your unemployment hearing submit a copy of this brief about why the SSDI eligibility ban discriminates against you because of your disability. Note: Prior to the hearing date, you will need to print and mail in to the hearing office a copy of this brief with your name, hearing number, and social security number on the first page.
2. Do not fall victim to the Department’s mishandling of its own able and available requirements. If asked by a staffer in a phone call or by an administrative law judge during a hearing or on an initial claim or weekly certification about your ability to work more than 32 hours in a week or your availability for more than 32 hours of work in week, answer “yes” to both questions. As currently being asked, these questions CONFLICT with Wisconsin unemployment law and so are invalid questions.

Because of the pandemic, you may lack sufficient earnings during the last year to establish a benefit year. But, you should still file initial claims and weekly certifications. When the SSDI eligibility ban is overturned and you finally can establish a benefit year, you will then be owed unemployment benefits for the weekly certifications now being denied by the Department. So, file away.

Being able and available when disabled

Just one example of where the Department ignores the unemployment law it is supposed to be following.

Numerous SSDI recipients are being denied PUA benefits because they are not answering a question the way the Department wants that question answered. The question:

Before this question and guidance is examined, let us first examine what the actual legal requirements for full-time work (aka being able and available) are for the purpose of unemployment benefits. Department regulations define being able and available as:

(3) Able to work.
(a) Able to work means that the claimant maintains an attachment to the labor market and has the physical and psychological ability to engage in some substantial gainful employment in suitable work. During any week, a claimant is not able to work if the claimant is unable to perform suitable work due to a physical or psychological condition. In determining whether the claimant is attached to the labor market and able to perform suitable work, the department shall consider all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, which may include the following:

1. The claimant’s usual or customary occupation.
2. The nature of the restrictions caused by the claimant’s physical or psychological condition.
3. Whether the claimant is qualified to perform other work within the claimant’s restrictions considering the claimant’s education, training, and experience.
4. Occupational information and employment conditions data and reports available to the department showing whether and to what extent the claimant is able, within his or her restrictions, to perform suitable work in his or her labor market area.

(4) Available for work.
(a) Withdrawal from labor market. Available for work means that the claimant maintains an attachment to the labor market and is ready to perform full-time suitable work in the claimant’s labor market area. An individual who has a physical or psychological restriction and is found able to work under sub. (3) shall not be considered unavailable for work solely because of inability to work, provided the individual is available for suitable work for the number of hours the individual is able to work. During any week, a claimant is not available for suitable work if he or she has withdrawn from the labor market due to restrictions on his or her availability for work. In determining whether a claimant has withdrawn from the labor market, the department shall consider one or more of the following factors:

[factors skipped].

Example 1: A claimant has a number of physical restrictions due to recent surgery, including a restriction to work no more than 20 hours per week for 2 months. With the restrictions, the claimant cannot perform the duties of his or her usual occupation but is able to perform a number of jobs for which he or she has prior training and experience. The claimant is willing to do these jobs and is willing to work 20 hours per week. The claimant has no other restrictions to availability. Benefits will not be denied solely because of the inability to work full-time.

Example 2: A claimant is restricted to working 30 hours per week due to medical problems. The claimant is still able to perform the duties of his or her usual occupation. However, the claimant is unwilling to work more than 20 hours per week because the claimant is receiving Social Security benefits and more than 20 hours of work would reduce those benefits. Benefits will be denied until the claimant is available for 30 hours of work per week.

DWD 128.01(3) and (4) (emphasis supplied).

The key phrases here are “in some substantial gainful employment” and an “individual who has a physical or psychological restriction and is found able to work under sub. (3) shall not be considered unavailable for work solely because of inability to work.” As long as a person can work to what their physical and psychological limitations will allow, they are able and available for full-time work the purpose of unemployment law.

The provided examples in the regulations explain these points. In the first example, the employee’s work is limited because a recent surgery prevents him or her from working more than 20 hours in a week. That person is still able and available for full-time work of 20 hours, even though this number is less than 32 hours in a week. In the second example, the employee is limiting hours of work because of a financial consideration rather than his or her disability. So, that person is NOT able and available under these regulations. If the person worked 30 hours a week rather than limiting him or herself by choice to only 20 hours a week, then he or she would still be able and available for purposes of unemployment law.

This attention to individual workers’ own circumstances is why being able and available for full-time work varies from individual worker to individual worker. Everyone should answer YES to this question when they can work their normal hours, as set by their physical or psychological disabilities. As long as the work is, for unemployment purposes, substantial gainful employment, then that work qualifies, whether 32 hours a week or just 12 hours a week.

The Labor and Industry Review Commission has on numerous occasions reinforced this point. See Tunisha Perkins, UI Hearing No. 11605816MW (11 Jan. 2012), Kouimelis v. Dennys Restaurant 6318, UI Hearing No. 12201489EC (4 Dec. 2012), and Wright v. Independence First Inc., UI Hearing No. 09607759MW (8 March 2010). There is no legal dispute that being able and available for full-time work depends on the individual worker’s own, specific abilities and that work restrictions based on physical or psychological disabilities are NOT disqualifying.

The Department, however, does not explain any of these issues with this question. Indeed, the Department apparently does not accept these issues as actual unemployment law, as the Department-provided explanation in this question of being able and available for full-time work simply does not square at all with the state’s unemployment law: the explanation here simply offers a flat out denial of eligibility to anyone who has restrictions on his or her work. As a result, many disabled folks think, because they are disabled and so restricted in their work options, that they must answer “no” to this question.

Furthermore, when Department staffers investigate these mistaken answers to this question, they ignore the regulations cited above and tell claimants that full-time work only means working 32 or more hours in a week. Even many administrative law judges will only look at this issue in this light and in complete disregard of these regulations and Commission case law (unless this law is pointed out to them).

So, disabled folks and anyone else with physical or psychological restrictions of their work should always answer Yes to this question about being able to work full-time. If you normally work 12 hours a week because of your disability and can still work 12 hours a week when unemployed, then for the purpose of unemployment law you are able and available for full-time work.

That the Department fails to provide correct information on this issue and then enforces its own legally incorrect able and available standard against the disabled is just one more example of how the Department continues to discriminate against the disabled.

Note: As evident with the Covid-19 related explanations in this question for how to answer “yes” and hence still qualify for unemployment benefits, the Department obviously knows how to provide legally correct guidance on an issue when it wants to. The question is why the Department will not provide correct guidance to the disabled.

If unemployment in this state is going to improve, then illegal questions like this one and countless others need to be fixed. And, the Department staffers responsible for this wrong advice need to take responsibility for these mistakes. Indeed, the entire on-line filing process needs to be redone from top to bottom as well as made public to everyone and not just claimants when they file their claims. Keeping this information from public scrutiny has for too long been the priority for the Department. The Department is supposed to help claimants in their unemployment eligibility, not constantly pursue goals to keep claimants from becoming eligible in the first place.

Update (2 March 2021): added graphic for post.

The targeting of African-Americans for criminal prosecution continues in 2020

A few weeks ago I described how the new administration under Gov. Evers and AG Kaul was continuing in 2019 to target African-Americans for criminal prosecution in unemployment fraud cases.

A new year in 2020 brings . . . five more prosecutions of African-Americans for unemployment fraud. Indeed, all five of these new cases involve African-Americans in Milwaukee county.

As noted here, initial appearances for these new cases are slated on election day, Feb. 18th. And, these numbers raise the percentage of cases being against African-Americans to more than 80%.

In 2020 (2020!), how and why can this racial targeting still be going on?

Note: the rationale for NOT pursuing these cases for purposes of restitution is put into doubt when the plea deal for one of these cases is being delayed for several months to allow for restitution to be completed. In this light, it is all too apparent that the Department of Workforce Development and the Department of Justice are filing these cases, in part, as a debt collection tool.

African-Americans are again being targeted for criminal prosecution

There is a new governor, a new Attorney General, a new secretary at the Department of Workforce Development, and a new division administrator for unemployment. But, African-Americans in Milwaukee continue to be targeted for criminal prosecutions for alleged unemployment fraud. Indeed, even as the number of cases have declined, the percentage against African-Americans have increased.

I previously posted about these prosecutions in October 2016 and November 2018.

Here are the 2015 and 2016 cases (click on the table to see details):

And, here are the 2017 and 2018 cases (click on the table to see details):

As noted in my previous posts, African-Americans made up 70-76% of all criminal cases, even though they made up only 7% of Wisconsin’s state population and only around 27% of the population in Milwaukee County. The percentage of claimants in the state as a whole who are African-American is around 11-12% of all claimants.

Several legislators have asked for information about these cases and an explanation for why African-Americans are being targeted for these prosecutions See, for example, this letter. Numerous groups have also raised concerns. Formal, public responses to these and other queries have been ignored, however.

The new head of criminal cases for the Department of Justice did present to the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council at the council’s April 18th meeting in 2019. At this meeting, Deputy AG Eric Wilson explained that criminal prosecutions would only be filed where the alleged fraud was sizable, where civil remedies were inadequate, and where there was a history of previous fraud. In addition, cases would no longer only be filed in Dane County (forcing residents from Milwaukee County and other parts of the state to travel to Madison for every event in their case) but would be filed in the county where the defendant resides. See meeting minutes at 3-5.

Starting in the summer of 2019, the Department of Workforce Development under Caleb Frostman and Mark Reihl and the Dep’t of Justice under Josh Kaul started a new round of these prosecutions being handled by Assistant AG Dan Lennington (click on the table to see details):

While the number of prosections is down from previous years (except for 2016, when there were also 11 prosecutions), the percentage of African-Americans being prosecuted is still around 73%. Anglos make up only 18% of these cases, and persons of color combined constitute 82% of all cases (9 out of 11).

Furthermore, the one defendant outside of Milwaukee County (an African-American women in Manitowac) is still being forced to travel to Dane County for her case. So, the declaration in April of 2019 about no longer requiring defendants to travel to Madison for the convenience of prosecutors only applies to the Milwaukee County cases.

And, it gets worse. One 2019 case was almost immediately dismissed by the prosecutor after being filed. In such circumstances, dismissal is usually because the defendant is not competent to stand trial or is deceased (one of the 2018 cases was dismissed soon after filing because the defendant was declared not competent to stand trial). As the Department of Workforce Development charges unemployment concealment/fraud for accidental or unintentional claim-filing mistakes, many, many folks with learning disabilities have been so charged. So, this near immediate dismissal indicates that the Department of Justice is not really applying any new or tougher criteria in deciding which cases to prosecute.

Indeed, the plea deal set for May 29th in one case (delayed by several months to allow for restitution to be complete) indicates that these cases are still largely being pursued as a means of debt collection despite the Deputy AG’s contrary statements back in April 2019 to the Advisory Council.

Finally, there is still no explanation for why African-Americans are being targeted for these cases wholly out of proportion to their presence in the population or even the unemployed. This racial bias has been going on for four+ years now without explanation.

If Lando was in Wisconsin, he would know what is going on here.

LIRC’s elimination

Governor Walker’s proposed FY2018-FY2019 budget includes the startling elimination of the Labor and Industry Review Commission.

Previously in 2015, DWD raided the Commission’s budget and had its general counsel demoted and replaced.

This attack was apparently not enough. All sources available to me indicate that DWD’s unemployment division pushed for the Commission’s elimination, and Governor Walker acceded to DWD’s demands (more on this issue below).

The agency description document reveals basic numbers about this elimination: the Commission is only funded for six months into the next budget year, and so the Commission will cease to exist on midnight, 31 December 2017. More than 26 staffers will be let go, including three Commissioners (only two currently appointed, as Commissioner Jordahl saw the writing on the wall and jumped to the Public Service Commission). As almost all the Commission’s funding is from federal sources or specific fees, only $265,500 in actual state tax revenue is being saved by the Commission’s elimination.

The budget bill, AB64, has the details about what is happening. For unemployment, see pp.663-74 of the bill.

In general, the budget bill makes a division head (who is a political appointee serving at the pleasure of the governor) as the appellate review authority in place of the Commission.

• For workers’ compensation cases, that person is Brian Hayes, head of Division of Hearings and Appeals.
• For discrimination cases, that person is Robert Rodriguez, head of DWD’s Equal Rights division.
• For unemployment, that person is Joseph Handrick, head of DWD’s unemployment division.

In this proposed budget bill, these division heads will take over for the Commission effective on July 1st of this year. In other words, on July 1st or afterwards any appeals filed with the Commission will no longer be valid. As a result, these division heads will need to provide notice about appeal rights to parties in workers’ compensation, equal rights/discrimination, and unemployment cases perhaps as early as June 1st. And, they will need to do so regardless of when the budget bill is actually passed.

Neither the workers’ compensation or equal rights divisions have staff attorneys on hand to handle these appeals. In 2015 (the latest year case load data is available), there were 214 workers’ compensation cases filed with the Commission, 230 decisions issued, and 32 cases appealed to court that the Commission had to defend. As there were 422 workers’ compensation decisions by administrative law judges that year, over 50% of those decisions were appealed to the Commission in 2015.

For equal rights cases that same year, there were 77 appeals filed with the Commission, and it issued 94 decisions, of which 19 were appealed to court and hence defended by the Commission. The 239 decisions by administrative law judges include many kinds of cases for which there is no appeal to the Commission (such as fair employment or medical leave cases), only appeal to circuit court. So, the percentage of discrimination cases appealed to the Commission is probably much higher than the 32% suggested by this raw data and is probably close to 50% of the cases for which appeal rights to the Commission exist.

In 2015, there were 59 appeals of employer tax cases to the Commission. The Commission issued 49 decisions that year, and three of those were appealed into circuit court. Administrative law judges issued 397 employer tax decisions that year.

The unemployment numbers are eye-popping for claimants. Unemployment appeals involving claimants numbered 1,735 in 2015 (~144 a month), and the Commission issued 1,773 decisions (~147 a month). Forty-eight of these cases were appealed to circuit court. Administrative law judges issued 18,172 claimant benefit decisions that year.

None of these division heads is loosing any of their current job duties, and there appears to be no provisions for hiring additional staff to handle their new appellate review duties. So, appellate review by division heads will have to occur when they find the time. As obvious from these numbers, that review will be perfunctory at best. For workers’ compensation and discrimination cases, the budget bill is simply shifting the responsibility for review into circuit and appellate courts. These division administrators are likely to rubber stamp all appeals that arrive on their desks (at least initially). Of course, costs to employers and employees associated with this move to court review will be increased, because they will need to pay for attorneys and filing fees after going through the motions for the perfunctory division review. As a result, the number of cases being appealed will likely decline because employers and employees simply cannot afford the additional costs that court review entails. In other words, injustices and basic mistakes at the hearing stage will likely go uncorrected and lawyers will have fewer paying clients.

The unemployment review process represents a slightly different picture from the other agencies. DWD’s unemployment division already has six to eight staff attorneys available to it. Indeed, it is these attorneys who prosecute employer tax cases, who conduct training of administrative law judges, and who occasionally prosecute claimants in unemployment concealment cases. These staff attorneys will most likely take on the task of reviewing the 1,700+ division appeals that land on Joe Handrick’s desk. So, employers will face an attorney prosecuting the tax cases against them and then having that same attorney or a co-worker of that attorney reviewing the merits of any appeal. Indeed, the same DWD attorney who lost a decision before an administrative law judge could appeal that lost decision and then conduct or advise on the division review.

NOTE: under this budget bill, DWD also retains the ability to appeal any decision of the division administrator to circuit court. DWD, in essence, can appeal itself. Huh?

Recall that the Commission was created as an independent agency in the late 1970s. Previously, the Commission managed the entire Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Services (DWD’s previous incarnation) and also handled appellate review of discrimination, workers’ compensation, and unemployment cases. At the time, there were concerns raised about staff attorneys and administrative law judges who were involved in cases having a hand in the appellate review of those cases by the Commission, even though at that time there was a separate division dedicated to appellate review. To address those concerns, in part, the Commission and the staff section dedicated to appellate review were separated and made into a distinct agency. In this way, the Commission would be insulated from political concerns and improper communications among attorneys who were connected to the parties in a case.

As obvious, the proposed budget bill reverses this change and does so without any of the protections needed for keeping Department attorneys who handle a case before an administrative law judge or who advise that judge about how to handle cases on a certain topic from also having a voice in the appellate review of that case. Furthermore, without additional staff, this proposal essentially makes the Department’s concerns about how a case should be resolved of primary importance. After all, cases have to be decided in a timely manner, and the increased case loads from this change will focus attorney’s attention pretty much on the Department’s own substantive goals rather than on the concerns of the parties for a fair and impartial hearing free of any thumbs on the scales.

And, this thumb on the scales leads to why the Commission is being eliminated in the first place. My sources indicate that the unemployment division of DWD is furious with the Commission because it has not accepted the Department’s push to charge claimants’ simple mistakes with concealment. The Commission continues to follow the statutory requirements that for the Department to demonstrate claimant concealment the Department must present evidence that the claimant made a mistake on his or her weekly claim certification and that the claimant understood or knew by making that mistake she or he would get extra unemployment benefits beyond what he or she should have received.

NOTE: the purported rationale for the Commission’s elimination is to get the average age of the Commission’s pending unemployment decisions at or below 40 days. That is, the Commission on average should issue an unemployment decision within 40 days of the appeal. Through September of 2016, the average age of the Commission’s unemployment cases was 37 days. So, the Commission is ALREADY meeting this requirement. See p.2 of the agency description document.

Here is a run-down of some of the concealment issues the Department wants over-turned:

• The Commission refuses to accept financial need as a reason for finding a claimant intended to steal unemployment benefits (unemployment benefits are by their very nature intended to address a financial need). Wallenkamp v. Arby’s Restaurants, UI Hearing No. 13607281MW and 13607282MW (15 May 2014), aff’d DWD v. LIRC, 367 Wis.2d 749, 877 N.W.2d 650 (2 February 2016); Gussert v. Springhetti Landscaping and DWD, UI Hearing Nos. 16400598AP-16400609AP (27 January 2017).
• The Commission refuses to find concealment for non-reported wages when claimants subsequently report those wages a few weeks later. Bilton v. H & R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., UI Hearing Nos. 13605766MW and 13605682MW (9 Jan. 2014); Perlongo v. Joey’s Seafood & Grill, UI Hearing Nos. 13610060MW & 13610061MW (22 July 2014).
• The Commission continues to find that an October 2012 transformation of a weekly claim certification question into a compound question was confusing and did not warrant a finding of concealment for mistaken claims based on that confusion (beginning in week 43 of 2012, the week ending 27 October 2012, Question No. 4 was modified from “Did you work?” to “During the week, did you work or did you receive or will you receive sick pay, bonus pay or commission?”). Harris v. Arandell Corp., UI Hearing Nos. 13606535MW and 13606536MW (9 Jan. 2014); Henning v. Visiting Angels, UI Hearing Nos. 13606277MW and 13606278MW (9 Jan. 2014); Chao v. Eagle Movers Inc., UI Hearing No. 13607069M and 13607071MW (17 Jan. 2014); Maurer v. Manpower US Inc., UI Hearing No. 13607416MW and 13607417MW (28 Jan. 2014); Wallenkamp v. Arby’s Restaurants, UI Hearing No. 13607281MW and 13607282MW (15 May 2014), aff’d DWD v. LIRC, 367 Wis.2d 749, 877 N.W.2d 650 (2 February 2016); Audwin Short, UI Hearing No. 14600693MW (10 July 2014); Smith v. Journal Sentinel, Inc., UI Hearing Nos. 13610174MW (31 July 2014); Jackson v. Securitas Security Services, Inc., UI Hearing Nos. 14606875MW and 14606876MW (9 June 2015).
• The Commission continues to raise questions about the conduct of administrative law judges who take it upon themselves to chastise claimants for their presumed concealment rather than hearing the evidence as presented and presuming claimant eligibility as the law requires. Henning v. Visiting Angels, UI Hearing Nos. 13606277MW and 13606278MW (9 Jan. 2014); Fera v. South East Cable LLC, UI Hearing Nos. 13607375MW (31 July 2014); Vasquez v. Fedex Smartpost Inc., UI Hearing Nos. 14602073MW and 14602074MW (24 September 2014).
• The Commission continues to find that claimants who are confused about what needs to be reported are just making mistakes and not committing concealment. Hollett v. Douglas Shafler, UI Hearing Nos. 13003690MW and 130003691MW (8 May 2014); Dabo v. Personalized Plus Home Health, UI Hearing No. 14609522MW and 14609523MW (16 April 2015); O’Neill v. Riteway Bus Service Inc., UI Hearing No. 15600518MW and 15600519MW (28 May 2015); Gussert v. Springhetti Landscaping and DWD, UI Hearing Nos. 16400598AP-16400609AP (27 January 2017).
• The Commission continues to find that claimants who are confused about their status as employees or independent contractors are not committing concealment. Haebig v. News Publishing Co. Inc. of Mt. Horeb, UI Hearing Nos. 13000910MD, 13000911MD, and 13000912MD (31 January 2014); David Mumm, UI Hearing No. 13003988MD (28 Feb. 2014); Martin R. Lash, UI Hearing No. 13403269AP (30 May 2014).
• The Commission refuses to give the Department three chances to prove concealment against claimants. Terry v. Jane Schapiro, UI Hearing Nos. 14601971MW and 14601972MW (12 Sept. 2014).
• The Commission refuses to find concealment for claimants who fail to report wages they do not know about when they file the weekly certifications. Bilton v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises Inc., UI Hearing Nos. 13605766MW and 13605682MW (9 January 2014).
• The Commission refuses to find concealment for claimants who mistakenly report their earnings when received rather than when earned. Waoh-Tobin v. Banana Republic, UI Hearing No. 16602900MW (18 October 2016).
• The Commission even refuses to allow a finding of concealment when there is no information in the record about whether the employee worked any specific weeks, received any wages in those weeks, filed possible claims for those weeks, and then possibly provided information on those non-existent claims that were somehow mistaken from the unknown work and wages allegedly done. Fera v. South East Cable LLC, UI Hearing Nos. 13607375MW (31 July 2014).

The Department disagrees with the Commission on all of these concealment issues. So, the Department has decided to have the Commission eliminated and anoint itself as the Commission’s replacement. Anyone interested in the impartial rule of law should be aghast at this development. Review will by design be done by political appointees whose job is to accomplish the political objectives of the governor who appointed them.

If this change goes forward, no one — not employer nor employee — should expect a fair hearing in any DWD case.

The problems in unemployment matters will appear almost immediately. First and foremost, the Commission is being eliminated because it disagrees with the Department about concealment issues. So, the message is clear and direct that disagreement with the Department puts a person’s job in jeopardy. When the Department can eliminate an independent agency, administrative law judges certainly will understand that they must do what the Department wants or face similar elimination.

In workers’ compensation and equal rights cases, the political influence arising from division review will take a few months or perhaps even a year to make itself felt. But, it will be obvious to all at some point that the administrative law judges in these areas of law are following a requirement that exists outside of the hearing itself. Just as private arbitration has been rightly criticized as favoring repeat players over one-time complainants, so too will administrative law judges find themselves knowing how their bosses want cases decided and acting on that knowledge in order to keep their employment. After all, the division administrator will get to declare in every appeal what his or her opinion on the issues are. And, certainly any case that has political repercussions will be decided by those politics rather than the merits. These division administrators are political appointees, after all, who serve at the pleasure of the governor. As a result, the governor is free to inquire of them about how an appeal will be decided and inform that division administrator of the outcome the governor desires.

[UPDATE 7 March 2017: added citations to Gussert case regarding discussion of concealment cases the Department wants overturned.]

Social media protections

Thanks to a reminder from the Wisconsin State Law Library, here is some information about social media protections available in Wisconsin since 10 April 2014 with the passage of SB223 as 2013 Wisconsin Act 208. A legislative council memorandum has the full description of this law.

Recall that around 2011 and 2012, media stories appeared about employers demanding job applicants to disclose passwords to Facebook accounts. While such demands are legal folly, at the time there was nothing explicitly illegal about them. This 2013 act explicitly makes such demands to reveal passwords illegal.

Under this law, an employer, educational institution, or landlord may not ask for or demand an employee, student, tenant, or applicant to reveal personal information associated with an Internet account of some kind, like the passwords or lock codes for a personal e-mail address, a personal cell or smart phone, or a personal Facebook account. Likewise, an employer, educational institutional, or landlord cannot discipline, discharge, expel, or refuse to rent to an employee, student, tenant, or applicant for refusing to disclose such information or who opposes such disclosure.

Employers and educational institutions can request and even demand access to Internet accounts connected to that employer or educational institution, however. Likewise, restrictions on which web sites can be visited and the monitoring of Internet access are available to employers and educational institutions on the networks and equipment they provide. And certainly, information in the public domain — i.e., available without use of a password or pass code associated with the account — is available to the employer, land lord, or educational institution without consequence to them.

Finally, if a personal Internet account or device could reasonably be believed to have information relating to an alleged unauthorized transfer of proprietary or confidential information, company financial data, other employment-related misconduct, any violation of the law, or any violation of the employer’s work rules as specified in an employee handbook, then the employer may, in the course of an investigation into these allegations, require an employee to grant access or allow observation of a personal Internet account or device. Even in this case, however, the employer may not demand the employee reveal the password or lock code associated with the personal Internet account or device.

If an employee, student, tenant, or applicant believes that a violation of this law has occurred, he or she can file a discrimination complaint with the Equal Rights Division of the Department of Workforce Development. In the employment context, the employee or job applicant would be entitled to back pay and reinstatement. In addition, criminal forfeiture penalties of up to $1,000 may also be charged pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 995.55 for violations of this act.

So, Wisconsin joins other states in making demands for Facebook passwords illegal.

Feds release two important advisories about claimant access

On Friday, October 2nd, the Department of Labor issued two advisories — officially called program letters — about maintaining claimant’s access to their unemployment benefits.

The first concerns the due process protections claimants have when charged with concealment. In particular, this advisory spells out the requirement that whenever unemployment benefits are denied:

[T]he individual must receive a written copy of that determination and must have the right to appeal the denial. States are not required to conduct a full, formal evidentiary appeal hearing before determining that an individual was overpaid, but they must offer the individual an opportunity to know and rebut the information in fact finding before issuing a decision that the individual is not eligible and was overpaid.

UIPL 01-16 (1 October 2015) at 4. Furthermore, once a claim for unemployment benefits is underway, payment of those benefits cannot be stopped until a determination about the claimant’s eligibility has been issued.

If the state agency cannot make an eligibility determination before the date of a timely payment, the state agency “presumes the claimant’s continued eligibility until it makes a determination otherwise.” Additionally, a state must inform individuals that the pending eligibility issue may affect their entitlement to [unemployment compensation] and may result in an overpayment.

Id. And, in that investigation about the claimant’s continued eligibility for unemployment benefits, the unemployment agency must independently verify any computer match information casting doubt on the claimant’s continued eligibility, notify the claimant about the doubts on his or her continued eligibility, and give the claimant time to respond to the accusation.

States may not make determinations of overpayments and/or fraud using automated systems without the input of agency staff. The individual must also be informed of the information received as a result of the match with the Federal database and given the opportunity to be heard before a determination of an overpayment may be issued.

Id. at 5. This specific statement that fraud determinations CANNOT be based on automated systems seems specifically targeted against the fraud by algorithm process currently taking place in Michigan. The advisory closes with the requirements needed for any fraud notice.

[A] fraud determination notice must be sufficient to allow the individual to know the potential penalties or other consequences of a fraud determination as well as his or her rights with respect to an appeal. The individual must be provided additional information on the appeal process including the right to have representation; to present testimony and other evidence relative to the appeal; to subpoena witnesses and records; and to be apprised of the consequences of failing to attend an appeal if one is requested. Communications must be in plain language and using methods that ensure the communication is most likely to be successful for all populations, including individuals with limited English proficiency.

Id. at 6. Given the push in Wisconsin for pursuing concealment charges against claimants for claim-filing mistakes, this advisory applies with equal force to Wisconsin.

The second advisory concerns preventing program discrimination because of age, national origin, or language proficiency and making sure that new, computerized filing and notification procedures are as user-friendly as possible. This lengthy memorandum begins by spelling out the legal requirements for open access to claims information.

[S]tate UI agencies must ensure that use of new technologies and systems for administering UI programs and providing services do not create barriers (e.g., procedural, technological, or informational) that may prevent individuals from accessing UI benefits, such as by denying them a reasonable opportunity to establish their eligibility. The U.S. Department of Labor (Department) has determined that “access” for purposes of conforming to Section 303(a)(1) of the [Social Security Act] means individuals’ ability to complete, submit, and obtain information about their initial and continued claims, appeals, reemployment services, and any other information, program functions, or services available for all claimants.

* * *

Thus, while states may offer claimants a variety of methods to receive information, the content of a written determination, whether it is a letter mailed to the claimant or provided in an electronic medium, must comply with the requirements in the Standard for Claim Determination specified [in Employment Security Manual, Part V, Section 6013.C.1.c.].

UIPL 02-16 (1 October 2015) at 3-4.

Electronic-only communication requirements may well run afoul of these non-discrimination requirements.

The nondiscrimination laws that apply to state UI agencies prohibit discrimination based on both disparate treatment — intentionally treating members of protected groups differently based on their protected status — and disparate impact — the use of policies or practices that are neutral on their face, but have a disproportionate impact on members of some protected groups. In addition, as detailed below, regulations implementing these laws prohibit states from establishing policies or procedures that, while not directly barring access to benefits or services for individuals who have disabilities and/or are [Limited English Proficient], indirectly prevent or limit access. The use of a website and web-based technology as the sole or primary way for individuals to obtain information about UI benefits or to file UI claims may have the effect of denying or limiting access to members of protected groups in violation of Federal nondiscrimination law.

* * *

States may offer individuals the option of receiving the information, services, etc., discussed in this guidance via electronic methods, but may not require that individuals communicate only through electronic means. Such policies unduly restrict program access, as not all individuals have the ability or capacity to communicate electronically.

Id. at 4-5. This advisory then goes into detail about what these non-discrimination requirements mean and describes the numerous steps that state agencies need to take. Of particular note are the following requirements and objectives:

Use of free, web-based translation services (also known as machine translation software) is not sufficient to ensure that the translation is appropriate and conveys the same meaning as the English version. Information about effective translation resources may be found at: [Lost in Translation.]

* * *

State UI agencies should also ensure that web-based claims filing systems also maintain a system for receiving and addressing complaints from limited English proficient persons and persons with a disability. This includes, but is not limited to, providing in-language notice regarding how to file an online complaint about delayed or denied service resulting from language barriers.

* * *

States may promote on-line filing as a primary method of filing UI claims, but they may not have policies and operational practices that make on-line filing the exclusive method of filing and certifying UI claims. As with persons with disabilities or those with [Limited English Proficiency], or older individuals, states must offer an alternative option for accessing information and benefits, such as by telephone and/or in person, in a manner that ensures equal access for persons unable to access or use a web-based system in order to avoid disparate impact on other protected groups. Further, states must broadly and conspicuously disseminate information about alternative access options in ways that ensure that people who may need to use such options are aware of the options. State UI agencies must ensure that use of new technologies and systems for administering UI programs and providing services do not create barriers (e.g., procedural, technological, or informational) that may prevent individuals from accessing UI benefits, such as by denying them a reasonable opportunity to establish their eligibility.

* * *

State UI agencies must also take reasonable steps to ensure that, if technology or other issues discussed in this UIPL interfere with claimants’ access, they have established alternative methods of access, such as telephonic and/or in-person options. The alternative access points must be communicated clearly in a manner that reaches the population that may need to use them. The processes the state UI agency uses to offer alternative methods of access must be documented in the agency’s policy documents and operating procedures. In addition, a state must train UI and American Job Center staff on the alternative methods of access to ensure that claimants and others who experience challenges are properly directed to alternative access options so that they may be served in a timely manner. Excessive delays experienced by potential claimants as they are referred to alternative access methods can result in a denial of access to services, in conflict with Federal UI law and nondiscrimination law requirements.

* * *

Action Required. State Administrators must:

1. Ensure that processes exist or are implemented to provide all claimants access to UI benefits as discussed in this UIPL;
2. Disseminate this guidance to appropriate state agency staff, including the state’s [Equal Opportunity] Officer;
3. Ensure that state [Equal Opportunity] Officers are involved early in all appropriate information technology modernization and business process reengineering plans to promote the full integration of equal opportunity requirements into agency technology plans; and
4. Work with state [Equal Opportunity] Officers to evaluate the avenues available to the public to participate in the UI process to help ensure access to everyone including individuals with disabilities and [Limited English Proficient] individuals.

Id. at 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14.

The recent developments in Florida and the push in Wisconsin for similar obstacles to filing unemployment claims have been going on for some time now. See, e.g., the posts about job searches changes and waivers. These advisories, however, demonstrate for the first time that federal authorities are pushing back. Stay tuned to see what happens next. The National Employment Law Project has declared: “By staking out a strong enforcement position in support of fairness and accessibility, we believe that the Department [of Labor] has taken a critical first step toward ensuring that unemployment insurance will be there when America’s workers need it, no matter who you are or where you live.”

SSDI benefits and unemployment

In 2012, the Department of Workforce Development introduced numerous proposed changes to unemployment law, and one of those proposals, D12-05, sought to ban recipients of Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) from receiving unemployment benefits.

After back and forth between the members of the Advisory Council and the Department, a new version of the Department’s proposed ban on unemployment benefits when receiving SSDI benefits was drafted, supported by the council, and passed by the legislature.

In 2014, however, the Labor and Industry Review Commission found that the actual statutory language did not accomplish what the Department intended and held that the ban on receiving unemployment benefits only applied for the week in which a person’s monthly SSDI benefits were paid. Since then, the Department has appealed each and every Commission decision allowing claimants receiving SSDI benefits to continue receiving some unemployment benefits (about eleven such cases in total). An amicus brief being filed in some of these circuit court cases has the details about these events and issues.

This amicus brief also demonstrates the fundamental flaw in the Department’s push to keep SSDI recipients from receiving unemployment benefits, namely the Department’s presumption that SSDI recipients do not work and leave the labor market. As detailed in this amicus brief, not only do folks receiving SSDI benefits continue to work in numerous kinds of jobs, they are also encouraged to do so.

Undeterred, the Department explained at the 19 February 2015 Advisory Council meeting that a proposal for eliminating all unemployment eligibility for those receiving SSDI benefits was being developed. At the 19 March 2015 council meeting, the Department presented this new language in D15-01 to make the ban on unemployment eligibility apply to all weeks SSDI recipients receive unemployment benefits.

To establish why this new and total ban was needed, the Department informed council members that in January 2014, when the first ban on unemployment eligibility for SSDI recipients was instituted, 687 claimants were immediately disqualified because they notified the Department that month that they were receiving SSDI benefits. This 687 number bears repeating: the SSDI ban as implemented by the Department stopped unemployment benefits for nearly 700 claimants. And, only eleven or so claimants who appealed their cases to the Commission managed to retain some eligibility.

The Department’s recently released Financial Outlook Report at p.34 shows the financial impact this ban on unemployment benefits for SSDI recipients has had: nearly $1.5 million annually is not being paid to claimants based on the work they have performed the previous year.

Staffers in the Secretary’s office of DWD recently asked the Commission to identify possible legal problems in the Department’s unemployment proposals. The Commission did so, and reported to the Advisory Council the problems with the Department’s SSDI proposals arising from the Commission’s legal analysis. The Commission’s memo reveals three basic problems with the Department’s SSDI efforts:

• a total ban on unemployment eligibility discriminates against the disabled
• a ban on unemployment eligibility because of disability is inconsistent with other provisions of unemployment law
• a complete ban on unemployment eligibility is far too broad relative to the income and eligibility of many if not most individual claimants

In response, at the April 2015 council meeting the Department lambasted the Commission’s memorandum as driven by a political agenda rather than legal analysis. Scott Manley, WMC vice-president, chimed in to endorse the Department’s criticism of the Commission’s “political” opinions. These conclusions were especially remarkable when the Commission’s memorandum represents the first time that council members were presented with the Kluczynski decision at issue in these SSDI cases.

The Advisory Council, however, apparently accepted the Department’s conclusion about SSDI benefits. After the members caucused, they indicated that they approved of the newly proposed statutory language in D15-01 and that the Department could go ahead and present this proposal to the legislature.

AARP Public Policy Institute report on unemployment and care-giving

From Rick McHugh, Staff Attorney at the National Employment Law Project:

A newly-released report show that individuals who lose jobs due to circumstances related to care-giving responsibilities for a spouse or family member are not likely to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Access to Unemployment Insurance Benefits for Family Caregivers, written jointly by the AARP Public Policy Institute, National Employment Law Project, and Center for Law and Social Policy is a comprehensive 51-state overview of how unemployment insurance rules apply to those who are forced to quit their jobs or who are fired when they undertake care-giving responsibilities for spouses, older relatives, or other family members requiring care-giving assistance.

Based upon a review of legal rules and interviews with agency staff and local advocates, the report finds that a combination of outmoded rules and lack of supportive resources leaves many potential recipients in the dark about their unemployment insurance options. In addition, incomplete implementation results in many denials of claims even in states that have adopted more favorable rules excusing quits for compelling family circumstances.

The report on family care-giving and unemployment insurance was commissioned by the AARP Public Policy Institute as part of its Raising Expectations Long-Term Services and Supports Scorecard project and was supported by funding from The SCAN Foundation and The Commonwealth Fund. The co-authors of the report are Kathleen Ujvari of the AARP Public Policy Institute, Liz Ben-Ishai of CLASP, and Rick McHugh of NELP.

More info on drug testing

According to Cap Times, Scott Walker’s plan to drug test the unemployed and food stamp recipients faces uphill battle.