My Unemployment Was Denied Because My Past Employer Lied To The Unemployment Office. What Can I Do? I Was Hired Full Time And Then He Cut My Hours To 3 Days A Week. I Couldn't Pay My Daycare For 3 Children On Only 3 Days So I Quit. My Unemployment Was Denied And I Have To Appeal And Prove That I Was Hired Full Time To Prove He Violated My Work Agreement. Any Suggestions On What To Do?

I had a similiar UI claim. I worked p/t for 1 1/2 yrs in hopes of being hired on full time. Employer told me not only would I not become f/t but they were also needing to cut my hours back even further. I was not denied UI, but the employer didn't challenge it. It is possible to win this. Stick it out and keep filing your weekly claims. As far as employer deception, I've no clue...

OP, unless you had a bona fide employment contract, there is no legal obligation for the employer to continue employing you full-time if there isn't enough work to do, or for any other reason that does not violate the law. Unemployment is meant for people who lose their jobs through no (or questionable) fault of their own. In some states (I don't know about Kansas) you may have been able to get reduced UI benefits had you stayed employed. And you could have used the two days a week you weren't working to find another job. The state isn't going to pay you UI when you refused work, even part-time work.

OP, unless you had a bona fide employment contract, there is no legal obligation for the employer to continue employing you full-time if there isn't enough work to do, or for any other reason that does not violate the law. Unemployment is meant for people who lose their jobs through no (or questionable) fault of their own. In some states (I don't know about Kansas) you may have been able to get reduced UI benefits had you stayed employed. And you could have used the two days a week you weren't working to find another job. The state isn't going to pay you UI when you refused work, even part-time work.

I would agree with that except that I have three children in daycare. My daycare cost were going to be more than my paycheck which in turn meant I couldn't afford for their daycare nor would have any left for gas to get to and from work. Not wanting to work had nothing to do with it. My hours were cut because the bosses friend was working three days for the chiropractor in town and needed two days to make full time pay for herself and so he told here she could have two days and he cut my hours. I had no choice but to quit and I didn't do it to refuse to work. I just could afford it.

I had a similiar UI claim. I worked p/t for 1 1/2 yrs in hopes of being hired on full time. Employer told me not only would I not become f/t but they were also needing to cut my hours back even further. I was not denied UI, but the employer didn't challenge it. It is possible to win this. Stick it out and keep filing your weekly claims. As far as employer deception, I've no clue...

Thanks for the reply. I have continued to file my weekly claims and have appealed the decision on the basis that since I was hired full time the employer violated the work agreement by cutting my hours for no legitimate reason other than to let a friend of his work two days so she could pay her daycare for the week because she worked 3 days somewhere else. Not my fault he did her a favor. I'm not giving up and thanks for your support.

I wouldn't count on winning that appeal. The fact remains that you refused work, even though it was fewer hours than you were originally hired for.

I must respectfully disagree with PattyMD. If an employer unilaterally, albeit legally, makes substantial changes to one of the primary conditions of employment such as hours, then you likely have good cause under the law.

Whether or not your refused work will be considered, but it is an entirely separate issue than whether or not you quit with good cause. And I would argue that the new offer of employment, ie part-time hours, was not suitable based on your needs and your employment history, especially with this employer.

You agreed to work based on the offer of full-time employment. You must argue that you would not have accepted an offer of less than full-time and must be able to demonstrate that you made reasonable attempts to preserve the job before resigning and the hardships of accepting less than full-time employment.

Might I suggest seeking legal counsel to represent you in your hearing? There are many good employment attorneys in KS with knowledge of these proceedings and will help organize your case for generally a very reasonable flat rate.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, rjc. :)

For further edification and clarification of my point:

QUIT WITH GOOD CAUSE - K.S.A. 44-706 (a):
The Employment Security Act sets forth eleven reasons for which an employee may "quit" and still qualify for unemployment benefits. They generally include:

being out of work based upon a physician's advice due to illness or injury and finding no suitable work still available with the employer when released to return to work (c/nc);
leaving temporary employment to return to regular employment (nc);
leaving to enter military service and the entry is rejected or delayed (nc);
leaving work because of the transfer or acceptance of other work by a spouse in a location which makes commuting impractical (nc);
leaving because of hazardous working conditions (c);
leaving to enter approved training (nc);
leaving because of unwelcome harassment (c);
leaving to accept better work (nc);
leaving because of being instructed or required to violate the law in the commission of your job duties (c);
leaving work because the employer violated the work agreement (c);
leaving work because of a compelling, personal emergency (nc).

In my opinion, the OP can persuasively argue that the employer "violated" the work agreement whereby he/she was hired full-time then the hours were unilaterally cut to three (3) days, which I presume is a 40% reduction. Under KS law, this may, and I always stress may, be considered good cause attributable to the employer.

I could have sworn you had been employed by Wal-Mart when you stated your employer lied. Wal-mart knows and uses Kansas Statutes (K.S.A. 44-706) to create a situation in which an employee has no choice in which to comply. The situation is pretty obvious when you have time to reflect; do I obey company policy or continue to sit here another 3 hours and listen to this evaluation? It didn't matter. The unemployment appeals process is: Examiner, Appeals Judge (referee), The Board of Appeals, The District Court, The Appeals Court, The Supreme Court of Kansas. I'm at the District Court level right now. I attempted it myself and made many errors because of my layman status.
I went directly to the laws of Kansas and discovered Wal-Mart has incorporated a special company within their corporation, just to handle unemployment cases. They use the current law to terminate employees. You just have to know the laws and know when an employer is trying to use them against you.
I was injured in July 05. i went on workers comp. everyone told me I would be fired after I was returned to work. I was; but before I allowed that to happen, Wal-Mart forced me to sign a T.A.D. temporary assignment duty form. I noticed on the form that it didn't say I would be welcomed back to my former position. i ask the Store manager to add that in and he did. I was side stepping every (legal) thing they tried. They finally pinned me when I was told a yearly evaluation was being performed. Yea, I worked there 10 months; 5 of which were work comp; and I was getting a yearly evaluation. A brand new super was in the meeting along with my regular evaluation supervisor. She talked for almost 3 hours; mostly about herself; and tried to make me angry about suggesting my work was not performed well. The company even threw in a second evaluation of the limited work duties I had performed while on work comp. That's where i drew the line (mentally) I didn't say anything at the time. How could I have possibly done that kind of work? Anyway, a store co-manager came into the meeting and told me in 15 minutes I would be ignoring the company lunch policy. (must take lunch before 6 hours in your work day) He left and so did I. The new super yelled out the managers door for me to come back. She ran down to meet me and said i was terminated for insubordination and not obeying a direct order. Ha! They set the whole thing up. I knew it.

You must look at Kansas Law to determine if you actually had a good reason to quit your job. The Law will not specifically tell you...however the court uses prior Kansas Unemployment Court Cases in which they have made prior decisions for specific reasons such as yours. I am purposfully continuing my case because Wal-Mart lied about the termination. I want the Judges Decision to remain in the Case Files that are in the office of the Secretary of Labor. (you must request access to them to see them) so when Wal-Mart or other employers lie about an employees discharge, they can relate and possibly use the Law to recognize how to prove the employers dishonesty.

The new supervisor created a completely different story for the UI Judge and did not (by law) submit referring documents before the hearing so I could subponea; for instance; the lunch policy and the 3rd person in a meeting policy.

The Law says a corporate employer has the right to allow "an employee of the corporation" (not a lawyer) to represent them in an unemployment hearing. I questioned this when the termination involved two corporate employers and a third one for representation was allowed. The third representative had the power to dismiss one of the "very important" witnesses. The third representative whispered to his client (new supervisor) during the hearing. The UI Judge allowed "hearsay" and used that in his final decision (as if the person was actually at the hearing; giving orders).

I don't know how things will turn out but I will appeal again in the District Court upholds the Boards decision.

Please, never give up when it comes to Kansas employment laws. They are terrible and do absolutely nothing for those of us who must work to survive.

appeal.

Please, please, please, don't ever take no for an answer when it comes to the truth! Even if others say you don't have a chance. There's always a chance. The different levels of the appeal process look for different things. The District Court looks for the Law; The Appeals Court can use it's own judgement regarding the "manner in which the termination took place"; and so on. Just DON'T GIVE UP.

appeal

Be careful everyone; Kansas has laws in place that prohibit exchanging documents and giving legal advice!

appeal

One doesn't want to study the laws that "give good reason to quit". We want to look at the law itself and to determine what empowered the employer to terminate us.

It is the employee that has not studied the Law...the employer is well informed by previous employee appeals.

appeal

Appeal, this thread is from two months ago. Whatever the final resolution was, it's over by now.

Just wanted you to know that I appealed a referee's decision in February of this year.

It's July and I'm still waiting on the District Court's decision.

If the person who was fired pursued an appeal, the case still might be open; besides, other's might enjoy the comments or find them refreshing or I might actually be encouraging them to have the courage to appeal a referee's decision.

I once worked for the Department of Labor in Contributions and Appeals. I know a little bit about the policies and proceedures. I certainly cannot claim expert opinion. I do not have a depressing or negative attitude that might insult an attempt to be honest. Oh yes, I left the department in good standing; or so I was told.

Were you fired from a job? Did you pursue an appeal? Do you have anything to offer someone going through the experience? I'd sure like to hear your suggestions and opinions about the process and Kansas laws.

Even so, the rule around here is that if there has been no action on a thread for a month or so, unless you are the OP coming back with an update or you have a question, not a comment, about the law being discussed, you leave it alone. It gets too confusing otherwise.

Would you please point out where I can find the rules you are mentioning regarding this site. I take into consideration that you are in charge of directing conversation in this arena.

It is not necessarily my intent to have a member read what I write. I do not have any control over whether or not their computer is even running at the time I write something. Writing; like for everyone else; is to share thoughts, experiences and feelings about situations they might have in common with others.

I do know that when someone is terminated and denied unemployment they might possibly have limited resources to continue conversations on line. Maybe the person just reads and does not comment further. Maybe the person has left the site permanently...it is not up to me to decide that.

If I see a question and it pertains to my own situation, I will answer what has not been answered and I will say what has not been said; hense; the whole reason for the Board.

I re-read comments and suggestions I gave and do not find where one might be confused either with subject matter or situational matter even if the original question is 2 months old or more. The site is not necessarily "buzzing" with newcomers and if it were they would ask for themselves if they didn't understand something.

Is conversation limited on this site?

If my comments or statements are confusing readers; I certainly will comply with your demand; but I will not comply simply because of a personal feeling you might have about a 2 month old question I am answering.

The whole idea of having a site to discuss kansas laws is to talk about the law. The two month old question merely gave me an intro.

I have a lot of experience in my recent situation with unemployment insurance and it is possible I can be of help to someone who has never gone through such a trying experience.

I am telling you what the rules are here. Different moderators may have different policies so they are not posted anywhere.

I have reasons for the policies I set up. They may not be apparent to you but they are not arbitrary and are based on situations that have arisen in the past.

Since it appears that you do not intend to follow them, I will solve the problem another way - by locking the thread.