Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unemployment Insurance- California

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unemployment Insurance- California

    I signed a separation agreement with a previous employer (employer 1) that stated that I would not seek UI benefits from that employer. Specifically it stated that "NAME also agrees to to the fullest extent of permitted by law, not to file a claim for unemployment insurance benefits from COMPANY at any time after the Separation Date."

    I worked for another company (employer 2) for about 15 months after employer 1 and recently got laid off. When I filed for UI benefits the EDD listed employer 2 as the primary and employer 1 as the secondary. Is that clause of the separation agreement still enforceable as the primary is employer 2?

    Thanks.

  • #2
    Agreements not to seek unemployment are not enforceable, period, in most if not all cases.
    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks!! Is there a specif code or precedent for California that I can reference?

      Comment


      • #4
        The case is is Edwards vs. Arthur Andersen, S147190 and was decided by the California Supreme Court.
        Somedays you're the windshield and somedays you're the bug.

        Comment


        • #5
          Wow. As I read California Labor Code Section 2802 (below), the UI is considered a loss and therefore such a clause is unenforceable?


          (a) An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all
          necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
          consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her
          obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful,
          unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed
          them to be unlawful.

          Comment


          • #6
            That LC section has nothing to do with UI. It has to do with business expenses incurred by the employee in the performance of his job.
            I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for all the info!! It hasn't arisen yet as an issue, but I am preparing for if it does and would like to address it by pointing to the section/precedent that covers that.

              Comment

              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
              Working...
              X