UNEMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT

The Unemployment Law Project (ULP) provides free legal assistance and information to people who have been denied unemployment benefits. With offices in Seattle and Spokane, Washington, we offer our services to anyone who has or is eligible for a Washington State unemployment claim. Unemployment benefits are a public benefit, in existence since 1935 as part of the Social Security Act, an enacted in Washington State in 1937. Countless studies have demonstrated that unemployment benefits help not only the individual unemployed worker, but also the whole community. Unemployment benefits are paid out to landlords, grocery stores, medical professionals, restaurateurs, etc. The benefits help a worker manage a period of unemployment, staying in their home and continuing to have food and medicine while temporarily without work. Empirical studies have demonstrated that a person who has representation at a benefits hearing is more likely to succeed in winning benefits than someone who is not represented. -----In 2022 Unemployment Law Project staff, students, and volunteer attorneys provided representation in 1211 hearings. During this period 685 cases were screened and referred to the Office of Civil Legal Aid attorney panel. Another 779 persons were advised. The demand for services remains high as we receive hundreds of calls each week in Seattle and Spokane. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has about 30,000 upcoming hearings.----- The Seattle office has focused on outreach to immigrant communities with Outreach Coordinator Ahmed Abdi. In 2023 ULP represented 914 clients in hearings and appeals. We advised and referred 841 others. The OCLA referral panel ended mid 2023. Ten OCLA panel attorneys provided 1,502 hours of hearing representation in 2023 in 194 hearings. ULP in Seattle and Spokane continued to prioritize outreach in marginalized communities. Some of the activities are listed below. ULP also connected with labor unions for outreach and referrals. ULP won an important legislative victory in Olympia with the passage of ESHB 1106. Policy Director Anne Paxton worked with Rep. Liz Berry, Sen. Rebecca Saldana, Rep. Mary Fosse, and Sen. Karen Keiser to get the bill passed. Under the new law, family caregivers will not be denied unemployment benefits for a caregiving inaccessibility, whether it involves care of children, elderly parents or other family members. ULP worked with Moms Rising and the United Labor Lobby in getting the bill passed. Spokane Managing Attorney Juliana Repp applied for and was awarded an Accelerator Grant for a Domestic Violence outreach grant for the Native community. The $60,000 grant will include two student fellows and will commence in 2024. BECU awarded ULP a $15,000 "People Helping People" grant. ULP also participated in advocacy for policy changes at ESD that will impact thousands of claimants in a positive way. For many years unemployment claimants have been asked questions about searching for work at their hearing about their job separation. This was an unnecessary waste of time and led to confusion and unfair denials of benefits. Those questions are not being asked at current hearings. ULP participated in advocacy for this change. ESD adopted new standards to open up rules for pandemic era overpayments. The new policy includes a broader interpretation of "equity and good conscience". and will mean that more people will be able to get overpayment waivers. ULP participated in advocacy for this change.Example Case One* A man who identified as gay quit his job as a sale associate at an auto dealership in Spokane. He was subjected to threatening homophobic treatment and unfair sales practices inflicted on him by the management team. The management team prevented him for receiving full credit for his sales, gave his deals to other sales personnel, and prevented him from getting sales. He was also subjected to anti-LGBTQ slurs and mocked because of his sexual orientation. He asked the perpetrators to stop their demeaning behavior and he reported it to the General Manager of the store. None of these efforts to stop the harrassment were fruitful and the harassment continued. He called the corporate hotline to report these instances and received no response. He ultimately quit his position due to the intolerable hostile work environment. ESD denied benefits reasoning that he quit because he "was not satisified with his job." The claimant filed an appeal. ULP represented him at his hearing and the judge ruled in his favor due to the illegal work environment. Benefits were granted. Case Two* A medical courier in Vancouver developed epilepsy thatimpacted his ability to continue to drive to work. He was briefly given a front desk role at the medical clinic that he worked for, but the epilepsy unfortunately led to a loss of voice and he was no longer able to speak. Still eager to work he applied for training benefits from ESD so that he could learn medical information technology and continue working in his field. ESD denied his application because they determined that he was not a dislocated worker because he was not laid off from his job and that his previous occupation was in demand. ULP represented him at this hearing and requested accomodation for the hearing because a regular telephone hearing would be impossible.The hearing office allowed the claimant to type his answers. Similar accommodations were made by ULP in preparation for the hearing. The judge was patient with the process and ruled that the claimant was a dislocated worker due to his disability and that he quaified for the training benefits even though his prior occupation was in demand. Case Three* A Korean American medical assistant who worked in Snohomish County filed for unemployment benefits after she lost her employment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Soon after, she was able to secure another job and she stopped claiming for unemployment. ESD then decided to issue a denial and assessed an overpayment. The claimant never received the overpayment letter, but filed the appeal as soon as she received an invoice for repayment. The appeal was filed a few days late. ULP represented her at her hearing and the judge found that there was no good cause for the late appeal. He ruled that she was unable to rebut the presumption that the overpayment letter was received. The Commissioner's Review Office affirmed the decision of the hearing judge. ULP took this case to the Court of Appeals. The court found that there was good cause for the late appeal and remanded the matter for a hearing on the merits. At the new hearing she was represented by ULP. The judge ruled in her favor and removed the $10,000 overpayment.