[larryj2112]

My wife and I moved out of the state of Nevada in July of 2010. I was offered a really good job in Texas. She obviously had to quit her job to move with me. Back in Oct. after she still wasn't able to find work I convinced her to try and file for unemployment based on the fact that she quit her job to move with her spouse out of state. She applied, had to show a bit of proof that I was actually offered a job in Texas. We had to fax my offer letter and marriage certificate to Nevada. No big deal. She was approved and she began receiving her benefits. Just last week she gets an appeals notice from a court stating that there will be a hearing on Jan. 4th of 2011. With is notice that came in the mail was all the documents we faxed them, my offer letter, etc.., her termination notice she gave to her employer, and her letter of resignation. She called the unemployment office and they acted like they couldn't tell her anything, just that a "referee" would call her on Jan. 4th.

It seems to me that her ex-employer is disputing the fact that she is receiving unemployment benefits. In her mailing she got, it states all the facts that she left for good cause due to her spouse accepting a better job out of state. All this, but the state already approved her. Could the state side with the employer and stop her benefits? If, so fine... But there is no way they would expect us to pay back what she has already received is there? We already went through an appeals process and the state approved it

If anyone could shed more light on what is going on we would greatly appreciate it. If you need information let me know and I will try to get you some details

Thanks
larryj2112

[Robustus]

Well, I have no idea regarding what she's actually entitled to by law and so forth, but I must say, it seems a little dirty to take unemployment benefits in this circumstance. She voluntarily left her job because it was in your mutual financial best interests for her to do so (ie, so you could take the job in TX). Unemployment benefits are intended to help people get through layoffs and other involuntarily employment-related hardship. You're taking advantage of the system.

[larryj2112]

If you really feel that way then I suggest you write the law makers and the fine congressmen and women that represent the FINE state of Nevada that you voted in and suggest that they change the law.

[Alley01]

I have to say that I hope that they win their appeal. Just like the previous poster remarked, it is not fair to receive unemployment when your wife voluntarily left her job. Kind of confuses the whole definition of employment.

If you lose the appeal, you will have to pay back all benefits your received previously. Frankly, it sounds like a clerical error that they approved you in the first place or that you did not put the entire truth on the form. Sounds very shady to me...and an abuse of the system when there are people out there that actually deserve unemployment.

[WestieJeff]

I agree. I don't know the law, but I am surprised this can be done, especially if it results in any consequences for the prior employer, since they had no part in it.

Will be interested to hear the outcome.

[Robustus]

Originally Posted by larryj2112

If you really feel that way then I suggest you write the law makers and the fine congressmen and women that represent the FINE state of Nevada that you voted in and suggest that they change the law.

I do feel that way, and I will indeed be voting my opinions - just haven't had the chance yet as I only moved to Nevada a few weeks ago.

Regardless, yes, if you're within your rights under the law, fine. I certainly disagree with your actions on ethical grounds, but that's a different argument.

[jfkIII]

Suggestion...DM Buzz123 on this board. He seems to have a good handle on NV's unemployment statutes.

[larryj2112]

We are within our rights under the law, if not she wouldn't have been approved from the begining. Nothing was "shaddy", all details that were presented were fact and true. We provided exactly what they asked for and the state of Nevada approved her.

[MadManofBethesda]

This has been an interesting thread to read. I had no idea that there were states that allow individuals to receive unemployment benefits for quitting a job to relocate with their spouse, but a cursory review of this subject reveals that there are several states that do, especially in the west. I'll let Buzz address the OP's specific question since he is the expert here.

It is a surprise to me because I am quite familiar with Maryland's law and this situation is specifically statutorily excluded. I had just assumed that all states treated this circumstance as an exclusion. Here is how Maryland handles this issue:

Voluntary Quit - Section 8-1001 continued - Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest - Appeals


B. Specific Statutory Exclusions

1. <snip>

2. Accompanying or Joining a Spouse
The claimant resigned to accompany her husband, who was transferred to another state to take care of his seriously ill mother. The claimant's spouse, not the claimant, was to provide care for his mother. The claimant resigned to accompany her spouse to a new locality which is neither good cause nor a valid circumstance under Section 8-1001. DeLoach v. Anne Arundel County Schools, 807-BR-85.

Neither good cause nor a valid circumstance is supported where a claimant resigned employment to accompany a person to whom she is not married. Since the legislature does not consider it a valid circumstance for a person to accompany a husband or wife, it follows that the legislature would consider that leaving a job to accompany a person who does not have the status of husband or wife would be an even less valid reason. Beck v. Laurelwood Nursing, 198-BR-85.

The statute specifically provides that leaving one's job to join a spouse in a new location is neither good cause nor a valid circumstance; and the same is true with regard to other family members, unless the claimant has left the job in order to care for a health problem of the family member. Knotts v. Westinghouse, 562-BH-84.

[fremontfred]

Originally Posted by larryj2112

We are within our rights under the law, if not she wouldn't have been approved from the begining. Nothing was "shaddy", all details that were presented were fact and true.

Just because something is legal does not make it ethical. Do you also support all of those scumbag ambulance-chasing trial attorneys? How about ridiculous class-action lawsuits that drive up product costs for everyone? Are you a big fan of the Westboro Baptist Church protests? All are legal. You are taking advantage of a poorly designed system. I hope they do make you pay back whatever you have already received. I also hope you are one day able to see that what you are doing is wrong.