IL EUC and Second Benefit Year P.L 111-205 (collect, file, receive)

[Ariannamarie1026]

I am a resident of Illinois and was collecting EUC in the amount of $516/wk ($376 plus $140 dependent allowance) until my benefit year expired on 12/3/12. IL automatically filed a claim for a new benefit year on 12/4/12 and my new benefit amount became $386/wk ($283 plus $103 dependent allowance). I was denied the ability to continue to collect EUC under Public Law 111-205 because IL calculated the difference in benefit without using the dependent allowance and said the difference was only 24% (it's actually 24.734.%) and I didnt meet the $100 or 25% requirement. Based on my understanding of the definition of "weekly benefit amount" in Title IV-Emergency Unemployment Compensation, dependent allowance should have been considered in this calculation. Can anyone help?

[Ariadne22]

We've never had the question of dependent allowance come up as grounds for an appeal on EUC and the $100/25% threshold. Ironically, your new weekly benefit, had it been $282, one dollar less, instead of $283, would have met the 25% threshold, and you would have qualified for PL 111-205.

Not every state pays a dependent allowance. Most do not. Therefore, federal law relating to federal monies (EUC) would probably not apply to extended dependency benefits. Fyi, these laws are interpreted by the BLS - sometimes contrary to the language of the law. The states will follow BLS directives, not the law as it is written. States can get in serious trouble with USDOL if they don't adhere to the guidelines they are given for paying out these federal monies - even if these guidelines contradict the meaning and spirit of the law.

That said, appeal this decision. Illinois will continue to pay you the new, lower benefit. It is possible, you may get a favorable decision on review.

Also, can you post the definition of "weekly benefit amount" you are questioning?

[Ariannamarie1026]

Thank you for your reply. I am waiting to receive the formal denial in writing from my appeal phone hearing on Friday, then I plan to appeal with the Board. Below is the definition of "weekly benefit amount" from Title IV-Emergency Unemployment, Sec 4002 (b)(3). I have also listed Sec. 4002 (g) COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION WITH REGULAR COMPENSATION.—

(3) WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNT.—For purposes of this sub-section, an individual’s weekly benefit amount for any week is the amount of regular compensation (including dependents’ allowances) under the State law payable to such individual for such week for total unemployment.

(g) COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION WITH REGULAR COMPENSATION.—
(1) If—
(A) an individual has been determined to be entitled
to emergency unemployment compensation with respect to a benefit year,
(B) that benefit year has expired,
(C) that individual has remaining entitlement to emer- gency unemployment compensation with respect to that benefit year, and
(D) that individual would qualify for a new benefit year in which the weekly benefit amount of regular com- pensation is at least either $100 or 25 percent less than the individual’s weekly benefit amount in the benefit year referred to in subparagrap (A), then the State shall determine eligibility for compensation as provided in paragraph (2).

[Ariadne22]

Thank you for providing that information. Did you get any sense from your appeal phone hearing if you'd made any headway?

The issue, of course, is the original legislation reads:

weekly benefit amount for any week is the amount of regular compensation (including dependents’ allowances) under the State law

while PL 111-205 (parenthetical missing) reads:

weekly benefit amount of regular compensation

The states do have some discretion in how they administer EUC. Illinois may need to get guidance from the DOL on your issue. Or, may have determined that "regular compensation" is just that when applying PL 111-205.

You might also want to write NELP.

National Employment Law Project

Another claimant (completely different EUC issue) did so at my suggestion. NELP wrote the DOL, received back a very clear explanation of why he didn't qualify.

You, of course, could write the DOL yourself, but I think NELP has better connections and is more likely to get a prompt and accurate response.

Let us know how this turns out.

[Ariannamarie1026]

During the phone hearing I did not raise the dependents’ allowance argument because at the time I did not have a clear understanding of the definition of “weekly benefit amount” or “regular compensation”. My argument during the hearing was that the requirement in P.L. 111-205 was at least $100 or 25% and since the law did not state 25.00% my difference of 24.734% should round to 25% and I should qualify. The referee pretty much stated that he spoke with an expert prior to the call and the reason I did not qualify was because their calculation was a difference of 24%.


As I look further into this, Title IV-Emergency Unemployment Compensation Sec. 4006 refers to the definition of “regular compensation” as defined in section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304) which defines “regular compensation” as:


“The term “regular compensation” means compensation payable to an individual under any State unemployment compensation law (including compensation payable pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 85), other than extended compensation and additional compensation “.


5 U.S.C. chapter 85 defines “compensation” as “4) "compensation" means cash benefits payable to an individual with respect to his unemployment including any portion thereof payable with respect to dependents;”


I will try NELP to see what assistance they can provide. I will let you know the outcome. Thank you very much for your assistance.

[Ariadne22]

I doubt the Illinois examiner, and whomever he consulted with, know the language in Title IV and Sec. 85 exists. It might have been enough to convince him/them or, at least, look into the issue further. For now, you probably won't win on the 24.73% with Illinois, although BLS will round up when it calculates its 3-mo. TURs. Case in point, 8.98 UE rate becomes 9%. 24.73 for BLS would remain 24.7%.

If you need to file a written appeal, the definitions in Title IV and 5 USC 85 should be enough to tip the scales in your favor - unless it was the intent of Congress not to include "dependents' allowances" in PL 111-205 - or the BLS has determined the language was nonspecific enough to exclude dependents' allowances.

I hope NELP gets a good answer from the DOL. Be sure to mention in your communication with NELP the two definitions you've cited, so they can pass it on to the DOL.

Yes, please, keep us updated.