Hi. I have a couple questions about New Jersey unemployment, and specifically about whether a threat to withhold insurance was out of line.

My wife has been working from home since she went out on maternity leave a little more than a year ago. Prior to that, she worked full time in the office. When she went out on leave, she continued to complete the vast majority of her work from home, and after her leave was done, she resumed a full time schedule. However, she completed her entire 40 hours/week from home. The company allowed this, and there were no issues ever addressed with her performance. Four weeks ago, a new manager was hired at the company. Two weeks ago, he called my wife into the office and said that he knows that she had some sort of deal (nothing in writing) to work from home, but he doesn't like it, and would like her to come into the office two days a week. My wife told him that she was unable to do that, because she has no alternative to taking care of our son during business hours. He gave her a couple weeks to think about it and to give him a summary of what she does and why it should continue being done the way it is being done. She did exactly that. Yesterday, she met with the new manager (and the HR manager) and he informed her that he wants her to come into the office two days a week. His explanaiton was that he doesn't like the fact that she is working from home. From his earlier discussion with her, it seems that he feels that by having her in the office, he can change her job duties to include new or different responsibilities. He apparently felt that by not having her in the office, he could not do this.

So, my wife again told him that she was simply unable to physically be in the office two days a week during business hours. At that point, he informed her that he had no choice but to let her go. This all pretty straightforward and it doesn't seem to be unreasonable on either side, but here's where it gets a little dicey.

My wife asked if she will be eligible for unemployment benefits, and the HR manager informed her that the answer was NO, because she refused to work. However, if my wife agreed to stay around a few weeks and train a couple people how to do her job, there would be no problem with unemployment. (Note that my wife's job had a direct impact on not only her department, but also the HR department, and that leaving without training was very likely to create a mess adding up to $10K-$50K over the next six months.)

So my question is, does this sound like a legitimate deal offered by HR? My understanding of NJ unemployment (which is significantly less than the HR manager's understanding) is that my wife didn't do anything that would prevent her from getting unemployment. She was fired because the employer changed the job requirements, and she was unable to comply. What I think I need to know is whether or not they really did change the job requirements, since she had been working under this arrangement for a year. Also, regardless of that answer, it also seems that unless an employee did something really out of line to get fired, he or she would still be eligible for unemployment benefits in NJ.

I'm sorry about the length of this post, but I wanted to put as many facts in as possible. Basically my questions are:
1. Did the HR manager tell her the truth when she said that the circumstances would prevent my wife from being eligible for unemployment benefits in NJ?
2. If the answer to the first question is NO, then do we have some sort of legitimate complaint about the fact that she lied to my wife in order to gain a significantly valuable service in exchange?

Thank you for your patience and your answers.

1.) For the most part, yes, the HR manager told the truth. Refusing work is a valid reason for an employee to be disqualified from receiving UI benefits in all 50 states. In SOME states (and I do not know if NJ is one of them) there can be an exception to that overall policy if there is a valid reason, such as child care issues, that make it necessary. There is absolutely no guarantee that such an exception would be made, or even possible in your state; it would be the state's opt, not your wife's employer's, to make the exception. Nor, as I said, am I in any way, shape or form certain that NJ allows such an exception at all. But because the possibility exists at all, it would be worth your wife's time to file anyway.

2.) The answer to the first question is yes, so question #2 is moot.

BTW, while you didn't ask this question, the company has absolutely no legal obligation to allow her to continue working from home 5 days a week unless she has a bona fide contract requiring that she be allowed to do so. This is true regardless of how long she has had this schedule and regardless of the legitimacy of her need to work from home.

Whether she can collect unemployment under the present circumstances is up to the claims examiner. A different interpretation would be that the employer didn't change the job requirements, it partially changed an informal telecommuting arrangement. Employers have the right to do so, and it's not unreasonable that a new supervisor would want to see your wife in the office two days a week since she's an unknown quantity to him. Ultimately, working at home is job requirement for you wife, not the company.

With regard to staying on to train someone in order to collect unemployment, employers strike those kind of deals with departing employees all the time. Bear in mind that one of the requirements for collecting unemployment is that person must be actively seeking work and available to take it when offered. In view of the fact that it's unlikely your wife will find a job that will let her work at home full-time, which seems to be a deal-breaker for her, one question unemployment might have is whether she's really available to take a new job.

Thank you.

I don't really have a problem with the reason for termination. I understand exactly why they can do what they did. I just think that the HR manager was playing fast and loose with the way she used a legitimate unemployment law to threaten my wife, when I really don't think that particular law applied in this case. The way I see it, my wife didn't refuse to work. My wife told her employer that by changing her work arrangement, they were creating a personal problem that she could not overcome.

To your thoughts cbg, the reasearch I've done here and within NJ's DOL information, and it says a person can still be eligble for unemployment if she quits because of some sort of new hardship, as long as the reason was work related. In our case, even though my wife didn't quit, her specific situation seems to fit pretty well against this one explained by NJ: http://www.state.nj.us/labor/ui/quit.html In the example, the reason wasn't work related, but I think in our case, it is work related.

Then again, maybe it's me who is playing fast and loose with the laws now.

Marketeer, it is an excellent point about her ability to prove she is actually looking for another job. She never said that she couldn't come into the office, she just said that she couldn't come into the office during the hours requested. When she applies for new jobs, she will be very clear on what hours she can work, and we understand that this may be an issue with the state.

Your question was, is the HR manager lying. The answer is no, she is not lying.

I agree there can be differences of opinion on what constitutes quitting or refusing work in some circumstances. But the information the HR manager gave you is, according to most definitions, correct. Work is available to your wife. She is saying she cannot work that schedule. Her reasons for being unable to work that schedule are personal, not work related. It is the child care reasons that are blocking her from coming in two days a week. That's not work related - that's personal.

In any case, it is not the HR manager or anyone else at your wife's employer who decides whether or not she gets unemployment - it's the state.

I get it. Even if the state would eventually side with my wife, the HR manager's statement was still very likely to be true. Therefore, she wasn't lying.

The HR manager was basically saying that the company could make it difficult for my wife to get unemployment, but it would still be up to the state. If my wife chose to train somebody, the company would present the facts one way to the state, and if she chose to not stick around and train somebody, the company would present the facts a different way to the state.

It still sounds kind of Tony Soprano to me, but I suppose if it is relatively common to cut such deals, then I'll consider it a lesson learned.


By the way, I really appreciate your help. In addition to getting a better understanding of the laws, I'm also really starting to appreciate importance of how each individual sees the facts and interprets the law. For example, I read the example from New Jersey, and determined that suddenly living in another state from your job was a legitmate reason to be quit, but only if it was the job itself that caused the employee to be in a different state. Therfore in my wife's case, I felt changing the location of where my wife performed her work was no different than an employer stating that she could keep her job, but instead of working in her NJ office, she had to do the work in their Denver office. It's the same work; it's the same job, but now they want her to do it in a different location.

You showed me that it is just as easy to interpret the NJ example by proving that she was using a personal reason to stop working.

It would be rather fascinating to me if I wasn't personally involved at the moment.

Regardless of what the reason for her termination was, the fact is that employer is going to have someone take time out of their day to show-up for the hearing and establish misconduct on the part of your wife.

My advice is to have your wife apply for the benefits. If the employer contests your wife's application for UI she should argue that she did not refuse to work rather she did not agree with how the the employer substantially changed the working conditions.

My guess is that employer was trying to hold UI over her head so that she would stay on and do the training and they will not contest the UI.

Regards.