Understanding Utah Unemployment Eligibility Standards

Under Utah law, unemployment benefits are generally available to individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own. However, if an employee has been discharged from her job, or if the employee leaves voluntarily for good cause, that does not mean the employee is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Employers often assume simply because they had reason to terminate an employee that benefits will be denied. And many employees wrongly assume they are not eligible for unemployment benefits if they left their job or if they were terminated. 

If an employee is terminated by an employer, the employer has the burden of showing the termination was for just cause. This involves establishing three elements: culpability, knowledge and control. Establishing culpability involves looking at the seriousness of an employee's conduct and how harmful the conduct was to the employer. Establishing knowledge involves looking at whether the employee has knowledge of the expected conduct or should have known the conduct was unacceptable. And, finally, establishing control involves looking at whether the employee had the ability or control to prohibit the conduct in question. Only if an employer establishes all three elements - which it has the burden to do under the law - is an employee disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits in a discharge. Certain types of behavior are more likely to result in a finding of just cause, including where an employee violates known workplace rules after warnings that such behavior will not be tolerated, or where the conduct is severe like falsifying records or stealing from an employer.  

In contrast, if an employee quits a different standard applies. For a quit, an employee has the burden to establish good cause for the decision to quit. The employee has the burden of showing that continuing employment would have caused an adverse effect the employee could not control or prevent, and immediate termination of employment was necessary.  For example, if an employee was subject to sexual harassment that was not addressed by an employer that may qualify as good cause to quit. Or, if an employee was asked to perform illegal activities or work in unsafe conditions, that may also be grounds for good cause to quit. Or, if your employer reduced your pay significantly you may have grounds to show good cause. Each of these situations require that specific facts be shown to establish or deny unemployment insurance benefits.

If you have terminated an employee, it's important to gather relevant records to support the termination decision. If you've been terminated, you should apply for benefits immediately even if you think you might not be eligible. There is a process that is used to determine claims, and either party can appeal the determination and request a hearing before an administrative law judge and even appeal the decision further, if necessary. An employee should always keep filing weekly claims for benefits during any appeal process and until a final decision is made. Benefits are based upon earnings but in many cases can exceed $30,000, so it's important to take the appropriate steps to prepare for and present necessary evidence related to your claim or the defense of your claim

While many unemployment claims can be resolved without the need for legal representation, it is often helpful to have the assistance of counsel because significant money is at stake. An attorney familiar with Utah unemployment law can advise you on evidence to introduce, make sure you produce helpful documentary evidence, prepare witnesses (or cross-examine the employer’s witnesses), and generally present the strongest case. Or a consultation before your hearing can help point you in the right direction if you feel like doing the hearing on your own.

If you have questions about Utah unemployment laws and would like to set up a consultation with one of our Utah employment lawyers, or if you want assistance with a hearing or appeal, please contact Stavros Law at (801) 758-7604 or email us at scheduling@stavroslaw.com. 

Location: Utah, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FTC Extends Comment Period for Rule Banning Non-compete Agreements for Employees and Independent Contractors

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will extend the comment period through April 19, 2023 for its proposed rule banning non-compete agreements for employees and independent contractors. (See FTC Announcement ). On January 5, 2023 the FTC issues a proposed rule that prohibits employers from using non-compete clauses with employees and independent contractors. If adopted, the FTC rule would require employers to rescind any such clauses contained in agreements with their employees and independent contractors, and provide notice that such clauses are no longer in effect. It would also prohibit such clauses moving forward. The proposed rule can be accessed here (See FTC Proposed Rule ). The rule is expressly limited to restrictive covenants that prohibit employee mobility - accepting jobs with competitors. But the proposed rule would also reach non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions to the extent such provisions are functionally equivalent to a non-compete clause. I...
Read more

Federal Court Holds Job Applicants Cannot Assert Disparate Impact Claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1986 (ADEA)

An en banc panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that that Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not cover disparate impact claims asserted by job applicants. You can read the opinion here: Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. The facts in Kleber are straightforward. Kleber, an attorney, applied for a senior in house position with CareFusion in response to a job posting that required applicants to have "3 to 7 years" of relevant legal experience (but no more).  He was 58 when he applied and the job was ultimately given to a 29 year old applicant. Kleber filed a lawsuit under the ADEA asserting both disparate treatment claims and disparate impact claims under Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(2) of the ADEA. The disparate impact claim was based upon the premise that the impact of the job limitation on experience was to exclude applications who were older, even if that decision was not the result of discriminatory bias or intent.   Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA makes it...
Read more

New Utah Non-Compete Bill Effective as of May 10, 2016

In a move that was surprising to many, the Utah legislature passed, and the Governor signed, H.B. 251, the "Post-Employment Restrictions Act" in March of 2016. You can review the new law here , which sets a one year-limit on employment non-compete agreements starting May 10, 2016. While the Act that ended up being passed was altered significantly from the original bill that was introduced, the Act prohibits employee non-compete agreements from being longer than one year following termination, and, significantly, requires a non-prevailing employer who seeks to enforce an agreement in violation of the Act to pay attorneys' fees and costs to an employee who successfully challenges the enforceability of the post-employment non-compete agreement. What Non-Compete Agreements are Subject to the Act? Utah Code Section 34-51-201 provides that "in addition to the requirements under the common law, for a post-employment restrictive covenant entered into on or after May 10...
Read more