Unemployment Law - Pennsylvania Employee Law Blawg

6/13/2009

Commonwealth Court Holds Unemployment Appeal Untimely Despite Appeal Having been Transmitted by Email Before the Filing Deadline.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Roman-Hutchinson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review dismissed an appeal from an unfavorable unemployment referee’s decision as untimely, because the appeal was transmitted via email but never received by the appeal board. The appellant argued that the mailbox rule should apply to appeals filed by email. The mailbox rule holds that a letter is presumed received when mailed. A person can file an unemployment appeal by email. However, the regulations expressly provide that the person filing by email assumes the risk that the email will not arrive at the appeal board.

Additionally, the regulations provide that if a person appeals by email, the appeal is considered filed when received and not when transmitted. The Court held that because the regulations place the risk of loss on the person filing the appeal, that the mailbox rule does not apply to email.

The appellant also requested that the court should permit the appeal because the un-timeliness of the appeal was not caused by any negligent conduct on her part. The court rejected that request because the regulations expressly place the risk of lost email on the appellant.

Roman should serve as a lessen to anyone about to appeal an adverse unemployment decision. Be diligent! When filing appeals by email make sure that the board has received your appeal. A person should NEVER consider their appeal was successfully transmitted. For those who are technologically challenged, you can still appeal through the postal service. In fact, filing through the postal service may be a more attractive solution, because such appeals are considered filed on:

(i)The date of the official United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the appeal, a United States Postal Service Form 3817 (Certificate of Mailing) or a United States Postal Service certified mail receipt.

(ii)If there is no official United States Postal Service postmark, United States Postal Service Form 3817 or United States Postal Service certified mail receipt, the date of a postage meter mark on the envelope containing the appeal.

(iii) If the filing date cannot be determined by any of the methods in subparagraph (i) or (ii), the filing date will be the date recorded by the Department, the workforce investment office or the Board when it receives the appeal.

Posted at 5:12 PM by Brian Pulito | Category: Unemployment Law | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

5/26/2009

Unemployment Law Question

I was asked an interesting unemployment law question today. The question was: “is an employer who does not contest unemployment benefits for one period of eligibility prevented from later challenging the grounds for unemployment in a subsequent period of eligibility?” For those of you who think the answer is yes, you’re wrong! The case law interpreting the Pennsylvania Unemployment Act is clear: the fact that an employer has not contested unemployment for one period of compensation, does not prevent the employer from attempting to block the unemployment for subsequent unemployment periods.

In the case Oravec v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 171 Pa. Super. 491, 90 A.2d 269 (1952), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that when an employer did not appeal a decision of the department of labor and industry that a person was eligible for unemployment, that employer was not later prevented from claiming the employee was ineligible for a subsequent period of unemployment. The court held that decision of the department alone was not a resolution of the issue of unemployment eligibility. The court held that only when a referee or the board of appeals has ruled on eligibility has that issue been resolved on the merits. If the referee or the appeals board rules that unemployment is justified and there is no successful appeal by the employer to the Commonwealth or Supreme court, the employer is bound by the ruling.

Oravec, has not been overturned and thus is still good law.

Posted at 5:12 PM by Brian Pulito | Category: Unemployment Law | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)