I looked on the unemployment site and I could not find this out.

I was terminated with my supervisor citing me "at will" as the reason (after about 25 days of working there)

I filed for Unemployment and was given a sheet by the Unemployment Commission stating how much I will be paid for unemployment. I was also given a sheet by the U/C telling me how to file a claim for my weekly benefits and given a PIN number. I was actually going to get paid by my prior employer not the one I was fired from.

I then get a paper stating " The following issue has been raised concerning your eligibility for unemployment compensation: whether or not you were discharged or suspended for misconduct"


QUESTION #1.- Does this mean my the employer that fired me contested my getting benefits (as I had previously assumed) or is this telephonic fact finding interview common practice for EVERYONE when they apply for unemployment?


QUESTION #2.- IF this DOES mean that my employer contested my unemployment, won't she ultimately have to tell me WHY EXACTLY (despite at will) I was fired in order for me to "build my defense" for the
Deputy of U/C?

Thank you in advance for your help!!!

[/I]While you are quite welcome to browse my other posts, which are tangents to this one, please consider these questions independently from them.
These questions have not been previously or numerously asked by me.[/I]

1.) Yes. Your employer has contested benefits. The UC office does not automatically consider that everyone may have engaged in misconduct - UC is geared in favor of the employee.

2.) Your employer will not need to tell YOU anything at all. She will, however, if she wishes to prevail, need to provide the UC office with detailed information as to what you did that was considered misconduct. This may or may not involve a hearing depending on what your employer says and on your state's law. If it does, you will perforce receive that information. If it does not, then you may or may not receive any details about the employer's claim.

The information in your past questions may be relevant to new ones. YOU may consider them as separate and distinct, but that may not be the case with regards to getting accurate answers. I promise you that not all responders are going to take the time to research whether or not you even have previous questions, let alone review them in detail. If you want accurate, free responses from volunteers, it is your responsibility to see that all the information is readily available to them. It is not theirs to go looking for it.

Thank you very much cbg! That is very helpful to know.



I have received posts from volunteers suggesting that I have already in some way asked the question I am posting. I am careful and confident that the background info I supply for each post is specific and relevant so that reviewing my other posts WILL NOT be necessary.

Yet, I have had volunteers to scroll into my past posts then become confused of the situational question of the current post.

This is my attempt to be be responsible and make sure the info they need is available per post, so that they won't have to go looking for it.

In previous posts you have mentioned assuming that responders will click on your name to get the previous information, automatically.

I am explaining to you that this is not the case.

The responders here, many of whom respond on more boards than this, all of whom are volunteers and who do this on their own time, do not have enough time to research previous posts. It is your responsibility to see that the information is readily available. I would rather that you duplicate information from one thread to another than that you make the responders go looking to find the applicable information in the other posts.

There is a difference between asking the same questions multiple times, and providing the background of your situation in all the appropriate threads. The first is not necessary. The second is.

"In previous posts you have mentioned assuming that responders will click on your name to get the previous information, automatically.

I am explaining to you that this is not the case."

Yes, in a previous post, I did say that I thought people would just click on my name to find more info. To be exact, I posted that comment on my first day of 1.learning of this site 2.posting my situation and 3.using the forum (11/25). What I am saying is since that exact post, I have made it a priority to make sure I post all applicable background info when I ask a question.

Case in point, this thread contains questions specific to me not getting my Unemployment benefits, specifics of my alleged discrimination theory would not supply any needed additional information to answer these two questions.

"I would rather that you duplicate information from one thread to another than that you make the responders go looking to find the applicable information in the other posts."

What I am in fact doing, is using my ability to discern so that no one has to cut down the forest to get to the trees. lol

Even by telling the responders that there are other posts out there, few of them will bother to research them. As I said, they do this as volunteers, without pay, and most of them do this on other boards as well. You're just another name to them and if you're not concerned enough to give them the information, they're not going to be concerned enough to go looking for it.

It's up to you, but the information you receive is only going to be as good as the information you provide.

"Even by telling the responders that there are other posts out there, few of them will bother to research them."

I don't understand. I'm not expecting people to search my past posts(the ONE time I thought people would has been explained on this thread).

I am now providing people with info necessary to answer the question per thread.

I am by no means saying "hey if you wanna know anymore, look it up"

I am saying that I noticed a situation where a volunteer did look through my past threads then basically said "hey you already asked this" which was not the case.

I am saying YOU ARE WELCOME to look if you want BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY because all that I feel you need to know will be given within the same thread.

I am planning on hiring a lawyer down the line, I am just trying to get a feel for what all information I will need to offer and catch folly in my thinking as it pertains to each situation.

I respect every volunteer on here (esp. the ones that respond to me lol)and I do not wish to waste anyone's time, nor am I trying to make anyone go on a wild goose chase.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY because all that I feel you need to know will be given within the same thread.

Presumably if you were an expert on the law, you would not be posting here.

Just because you feel that all we need to know for any particular question is included, does not mean that it is.

But if you're convinced that you know precisely what information we need for any given question, fair enough. Just remember when you get an incorrect answer because all the facts were not in one place, that you were the one who decided that you knew best what information we needed.

My last post on the subject. You can reply or not as you like.

"Presumably if you were an expert on the law, you would not be posting here."

No, I am not an expert on the law...nor are some of the volunteers.

"Just because you feel that all we need to know for any particular question is included, does not mean that it is."

You are right indeed! Yet I do what I can with common sense issues and yes, I use the term "common sense" loosely.

"But if you're convinced that you know precisely what information we need for any given question"

I'm am by no means convinced, just more sure than not. I feel I'm on the right track and If I'm not, the lawyer that I will hire will get me there.

"You can reply or not as you like."

I have A LOT of free time on my hands lately, chances are I will reply to any/everything I get.

Update

The employer that dismissed me is not contesting my Unemployment after all. They U/C told me that it was standard practise to investigate for misconduct before granting U/I when someone has been fired.

The fact finding interview was held today (it was supposed to be on the 29th)
My employer did not participate...at the same time anyway.
She told me that I was fired due to at will and that it was a business decision..."she" being the lady from the U/C as told to her by my previous employer