Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't matter if Target has a "rule." That is not necessarily an automatic disqualification for CA EDD. And a firing does not disqualify you, either, unless you stole or attacked someone.
CA EDD default position whenever there is a question is denial. You have to appeal this. Many, many people have successfully appealed in CA. You should win this.
Ariadne22 is correct. Just do the appeal. It sounds like you did a no-call no-show one time. For a rules violation to stick, Target would have had to warn you first before firing you. Since Target chose to throw the book at you, it's ok for you to be fired, but you have a super great chance at an appeal hearing. Just know that many deputies deny benefits just hoping you'll go away and forgo the benefits. Also, in my research, if the claim is based on AK rules, it looks like you can quit a job in AK for any reason you want and are only subjected to a 6 week disqualification period which is very unusual provision.
You have two very good reasons for an appeal. Target was too harsh on you that would allow you to benefits right away, or at the worst because your claim is with AK, your benefits should be restored after 5 weeks because you already had served your waiting week.
Ariadne22 is correct. Just do the appeal. It sounds like you did a no-call no-show one time. For a rules violation to stick, Target would have had to warn you first before firing you. Since Target chose to throw the book at you, it's ok for you to be fired, but you have a super great chance at an appeal hearing. Just know that many deputies deny benefits just hoping you'll go away and forgo the benefits. Also, in my research, if the claim is based on AK rules, it looks like you can quit a job in AK for any reason you want and are only subjected to a 6 week disqualification period which is very unusual provision.
You have two very good reasons for an appeal. Target was too harsh on you that would allow you to benefits right away, or at the worst because your claim is with AK, your benefits should be restored after 5 weeks because you already had served your waiting week.
My claim was transfered to CA, I'm not on AK benefits.
You can't transfer a claim. A claim may be administered by CA as a convenience to you and AK, but they do it according to AK's rules. The only way to have a CA claim is to have applied in CA, and used CA earnings.
You can't transfer a claim. A claim may be administered by CA as a convenience to you and AK, but they do it according to AK's rules. The only way to have a CA claim is to have applied in CA, and used CA earnings.
Well, when I moved out here, I applied through CA. they asked for all my information on my last job and they told me that I could get benefits through CA. CA pay way more than AK. I'm telling you the truth I got benefits through CA, not AK. But maybe I was getting it through CA because I have a combined claim. You see, I worked at LAX at a call center before I left for AK. They asked me if I had worked in CA within the last 2 years and I told them yeah. I left the call center in January of 2010 to worked in AK for almost 2 years. I was only a few days away of missing the deadline to where I could get benefits from my old job at the call center. Thats probably why I was able to receive CA benefits.
I received a letter from EDD saying that they over paid me over $7,000 over the year after they decided that i wasn't eligible for unemployment. what am i going to do? I feel so helpless. When i applied, the guy on the phone never asked me about another job. The guy just told me about adding alaska benefits. This isnt fair.
I received a letter from EDD saying that they over paid me over $7,000 over the year after they decided that i wasn't eligible for unemployment. what am i going to do? I feel so helpless. When i applied, the guy on the phone never asked me about another job. The guy just told me about adding alaska benefits. This isnt fair.
You aren't helpless unless you choose to be. This is your answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
Doesn't matter if Target has a "rule." That is not necessarily an automatic disqualification for CA EDD. And a firing does not disqualify you, either, unless you stole or attacked someone.
CA EDD default position whenever there is a question is denial. You have to appeal this. Many, many people have successfully appealed in CA. You should win this.
None of this correspondence is cast in stone at this point. See above.
Denials are the UE offices' easy way out and very common - unless you appeal.
Stop talking about how "unfair" this is and start drafting your appeal now. Furthermore, nothing you are posting makes any sense. What do you meant the guy never asked you about another job? What job? When you apply for benefits you need to give your employment history. Surely your Alaska employment was part of that history. If the AK history wasn't discussed, put that in your appeal, too.
You lost your job in Alaska even though Target says you were fired. Target's rule is irrelevant as we said above. You got a job in CA, were laid off in CA. CA pays. In the end, CA will not deny you benefits on the basis of a one-time "rules violation" in AK. But you have to appeal. And make sure your appeal is clear and concise. Focus on the "rules violation."
Start drafting your appeal.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 12-03-2012 at 03:39 PM..
OK. I just got back from my appeals hearing today. Target didnt show up but they just sent a letter from a representative. I dont want to get my hopes up so as soon as my decision gets back in the mail, I will let you all know the results and details but I can say that I feel pretty good about my case and i hope she believes me, especially when no one showed up to refute.
Target just simply said that I was a no show for three days within a seven day period, which is false because everything happened in a three day consecutive period. First day, I was ill and left early, telling them that I wasnt comming in the next day. Second day, I stayed home. Third day, they called me and told me I was terminated and to look for my last check in the mail. I told the judge that I told the receptionest in the HR office that I would be out and she asked me if the receptionest was the one who handled employee flow and I told her yes. I then pointed out that Target was inconsistant with its story because in their handbook, it says that one no call no show is immediate grounds for termination, something they admitted in the letter. Then I pointed out to the judge that it wouldnt make since for them to mark me as a no call no show over a seven day period when they sent my check express through UPS and everything happened in a three day consecutive period. I did admit that I should of called and make sure that everything was OK with my absence, but then pointed out that they knew I was sick when I left early due to Ilness and I informed them that I would be absent. therefore, I did not willingly engage in misconduct that was grounds for termination, atleast I see it that way. She semed really cool and nice about it. I hope things go well.I wish Target actually showed up so they could of confirmed my story bcause I had no evidence with it being over a year ago.
You aren't helpless unless you choose to be. This is your answer:
None of this correspondence is cast in stone at this point. See above.
Denials are the UE offices' easy way out and very common - unless you appeal.
Stop talking about how "unfair" this is and start drafting your appeal now. Furthermore, nothing you are posting makes any sense. What do you meant the guy never asked you about another job? What job? When you apply for benefits you need to give your employment history. Surely your Alaska employment was part of that history. If the AK history wasn't discussed, put that in your appeal, too.
You lost your job in Alaska even though Target says you were fired. Target's rule is irrelevant as we said above. You got a job in CA, were laid off in CA. CA pays. In the end, CA will not deny you benefits on the basis of a one-time "rules violation" in AK. But you have to appeal. And make sure your appeal is clear and concise. Focus on the "rules violation."
Start drafting your appeal.
I worked in AK, then got laid off. Then came here to CA and started working for Target but after a few weeks, got fired for the reasons I already explained. When I filed for a claim, AK transfered my case here to CA because it was now where I lived. After almost a year, I had to file an extension. I told them I worked for Target but they didnt know that. You see, CA goes off weather you are qualified for benefits based on your very last job, but they didnt know that I worked for Target and was fired. When I filed for my first claim, the guy over the phone was just discussing my AK employment with me because he was a specialist in Unemployment transfers. He never asked for my history. Thats why Im going through this now.
Thanks for clearing up the chronology, and the update. Hopefully, you'll have good news. A one-time rules violation should not result in denial of benefits. Not in CA.
You should hear something from CA relatively soon, I would think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
