Unemployment Compensation

Unemployment Compensation Articles

Connecticut’s Shared Work Program

By Scott E. Schaffer, Esq. • 01 Jul, 2009

Connecticut’s Shared Work Program permits employers to reduce work hours while affected employees collect unemployment compensation equal to some or all of their lost earnings. Under the Program employees share the impact of reduced demand, but receive unemployment compensation benefits they would not otherwise be eligible for. To qualify for the Program, at least four full time employees must participate in the plan, employee hours must be reduced by 20 to 40 percent, employers must maintain all benefit levels, and the reduction in hours must be in lieu of a layoff of an equivalent percentage of the workforce. Employees must still meet the general eligibility requirements for unemployment compensation. Interested companies should contact the Connecticut Department of Labor at 860-263-6660 for an application, which typically takes up to 30 days for review and approval.

Unemployment Compensation Awarded for Quit Over Higher Insurance Deductible

By Scott E. Schaffer, Esq. • 01 Apr, 2008

The Connecticut Superior Court recently affirmed a decision of the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division granting unemployment compensation benefits to an employee who quit her job after her employer raised the health plan deductible to $2,000 per year.  Yellow Cab Garage Co., Inc. v. Administrator, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3268 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 7, 2007).  The employee worked as a part-time bookkeeper for over three years and earned $17.50 per hour.  Approximately nine months before she quit, Yellow Cab informed all employees that it was changing its health insurance plan.  

Following the announced change, the employee unsuccessfully complained to her supervisor about the increased deductible.  She continued working for some nine months, quit, and then filed for unemployment compensation benefits. The Administrator found she quit for good cause attributable to her employer and awarded benefits.  The company appealed and the Referee reversed. Following the employee’s appeal the Board of Review reversed and found the unilateral increase in the deductible was akin to a reduction in wages, and constituted good cause for quitting for reasons attributable to the employer.  Therefore, she was entitled to collect unemployment compensation.

The Board also dismissed the company’s argument that her nine month continued employment following the deductible increase amounted to acquiescence, thereby waiving her right to claim her quit was for good cause attributable to her employer. Normally the Board follows a three month acquiescence rule, but in this case found her continued employment was necessary to support herself and test the financial impact of the new deductible.

In affirming the Board, the court found there was sufficient evidence in the record to conclude the claimant quit for good cause attributable to her employer and was eligible for benefits.  This case points out the unintended consequences that increased employee benefit costs may have on an employee’s right to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

Contesting Attendance Related Unemployment Compensation Claims

By Scott E. Schaffer, Esq. • 01 Oct, 2005

An employee will be denied unemployment compensation when an employer proves the claimant’s pattern of absence amounted to “willful misconduct.”  CT Public Act 04-214.

To prove “willful misconduct” the employer must show the employee was absent either without “good cause,” or without “notice to the employer, which the employee could reasonably have provided under the circumstances,” on 3 “separate instances” within a 12 month period.  

Further, each 2 consecutive day period of absence is counted as a “separate instance.”  For example, if an employee is absent for 3 consecutive days it counts as 2 “instances.”

“Good cause” is defined under the Act as “any compelling personal circumstance which would normally be recognized by the individual’s employer as a proper excuse for absence, or which would prevent a reasonable person under the same conditions from reporting to work.”  Examples include personal illness, a serious isolated transportation problem over which the employee had no control, or a sudden event requiring the person to address a compelling personal emergency.

“Notice” is defined as notification “through any reasonable method and within any reasonable timeframe prescribed by the employer.”  Even when an employee has “good cause” a failure to provide “notice” will result in the absence being counted as an “instance.” CT Reg. § 31-236-26d.

Tardiness is handled separately and is considered “willful misconduct” only if the pattern of tardiness constitutes either “willful disregard of the employer’s interest,” or “a knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy.”   CT Reg. § 31-236-28.


Share by: