CA EDD claim denial

[cbg]

There is no point in the process where you are going to learn exactly what factor turned the corner for the ALJ, if in fact there was a single factor. You may take it for granted that all the information provided from you and from the employer was considered. They're not going to say at any time, "X was the piece of information that decided the issue".

 

[Chyvan]

Its not that I think it matters,

It does matter. You need to know if the employer is doing this to you, or if you did it to yourself by talking too much.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Misconduct_MC_485.htm#GeneralRule

There's six elements to a "rules violation." You can either make the employer prove them all, or you can admit that all the elements were present and do it for them.

 

[DonB]

That's not entirely true. They can also do it by what comes out of the claimant's own mouth or what they wrote on their application for UI.

This is why I asked. The interviewer used the exact phrase when she commented to me that I "broke a reasonable employer rule". My reply was that I was not aware on any such rule and that I had never been written up or coached for any such matter (written or verbally) in the past. I also pointed out that the center management asked (so I was told) that I not be fired as they were confident no such action would happen again. Anyway, my intent here is to better understand this process so I might be as effective as I can be for me in my appeal.

 

[Chyvan]

There is no point in the process where you are going to learn exactly what factor turned the corner for the ALJ

He's not at the ALJ phase in the process. His decision was issued by an EDD worker that gets overturned on appeal 55% of the time. I've seen EDD worker decisions what were CLEARLY wrong. They do it because they can. When those decisions are written by the ALJs, you'll know exactly why you were denied.

 

[cbg]

He knows why he was denied, and I hope you're not going to say that a decision to deny benefits because he falsified employer records was wrong. Nor is he denying that he did what the decision says he did.

What he wants to know is whether the decision was made with, or without, the employer's input. You and I both know that it was with. But no one is going to tell him the percentage of weight each specific factor was granted.

 

[Chyvan]

I hope you're not going to say that a decision to deny benefits because he falsified employer records was wrong.

That's not what the decision says. It says "because you broke a reasonable employer rule." It doesn't even list the rule nor the bad act he performed that caused him have broken the rule. I've read enough of these denials to know that the EDD worker that wrote it, isn't that good. The good and nearly unwinnable "rules violations" will always list exactly what rule was broken.

 

[cbg]

And the rule he says he broke had to do with falsifying records. They don't need to spell it out. He broke a rule and he knows it. How would WE know if he didn't tell us exactly what he did?

Look, chyvan, we all know already that you have no ethics and no morals and don't mind in the least misleading people into lying, cheating, and committing fraud so that it sounds as if you actually are qualified to advise them (which you have elsewhere acknowledged you are not). But it sounds as if this guy already knows how to cheat. You really don't have to waste everyone's time playing semantic games.

 

[Chyvan]

you have no ethics and no morals and don't mind in the least misleading people into lying, cheating, and committing fraud

If the employer can't prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a claimant committed a bad act that rises to the level of misconduct, then so be it. I don't tell anyone to lie, but they don't have to spill their guts either.

I don't mislead anyone. There are procedural aspects to the process, and there is no reason for a claimant that is informed of them not to take advantage of them.

In a discharge, the employer has the burden. If the claimant is just going to admit to everything, then what's the point?

The UI applications ask "why" or the "reason" you were fired, and a claimant can put in "fired." It's not a lie. While the deputies can and do ask incriminating questions, the claimant doesn't have to take the call and a decision will be made "with the best available information." Again, not lying. At the hearing, I have yet to have a claimant say that the ALJ asked them right out, "did you do this?" They just don't probably because they take self incrimination seriously.

I see too many claimants that should get benefits being denied for wrong reasons, that when a claimant gets benefits that probably shouldn't, I can live it. Even when the claimants succeed on appeal, that's still a minimum of 4 to 6 week wait on top of the 3 to 4 week wait for the initial decision. It's hurting people that can least afford it.

 

[Isis1]

Dear gawd in heaven.

Unemployment benefits are not for those that cannot afford to be without. It is for those that were unjustifiably fire or let go. And are looking for work in between.

OP WAS FIRED FOR FALSIFYING RECORDS.

 

[cbg]

And with that statement, you have proven beyond any doubt why you should NOT be advising people on unemployment issues.

I realize you will not understand why I say that. People who really do have the knowledge and qualifications to advise them will.

(Employer DID prove it. OP was denied. And rightfully so.)

 

[Chyvan]

(Employer DID prove it. OP was denied. And rightfully so.)

An employer getting a claimant denied with an EDD worker doesn't mean that by any stretch. 55% of EDD determinations are reversed on appeal by ALJs, meaning in those 55% of cases the employer couldn't meet the burden of proof at an appeal hearing where it really counts.

A much more likely scenario is that the claimant spilled his guts on his UI application and did it to himself rather than the employer doing a bang up job.

http://www.cuiab.ca.gov/Statistics/quickStats/Outcomes_Jan-Jun_2016.pdf

Here's the latest statistics. 1256 is the separation issue denials by an EDD worker that get overturned by an ALJ. 13830/25161 = 55% That percentage hasn't changed in years.

 

[cbg]

Yes, dear. Now run away and let the grownups talk.