Common reason for denying Unemployment compensation?

Note: I am not nor have I ever been employed in Florida.

Florida is denying unemployment benefits to someone who voluntarily left a full-time job for a better full-time job after the person was terminated without prejudice from the new job. The employee worked at the new job for a month and a half.

The denial of benefits is attributed to “The Claimant quit to accept work elsewhere. . . . In accordance with Section 443benefits are not payable because: The reason for quitting was not attributable to the employer. . .”

So if I understand this correctly, if you leave a job to take another job, but the other job ends through no fault of your own, the prior employer can deny your claims? Is that right? Because if it is then unemployment insurance isn’t good for much.

And if it is true of Florida, is it true of most other states?

Why do you think that the first employer would be responsible to pay UI claims to you if you quit to work elsewhere? And how long do you think that responsibility would last? 1 month? 1 year?

Your question seems very odd.

I thought unemployment insurance was based on whether you had steady employment for the past 6 months. I thought your benefit was based on your earnings for the past year. I did realize that if you voluntarily quit your job you aren’t eligible for unemployment.

I did not realize that unemployment insurance is not a safety net. That’s exactly what I thought it was.

I absolutely did not realize that if you change jobs you are literally on your own.

ETA: Yes, I thought that the employer was responsible for 1 year, as I thought benefits were based on a rolling year.

You clearly misunderstood the unemployment benefit laws. Ignorance fought!

So that’s the way it works in the US. Is that the way it works in Europe?

I can’t speak for Europe, but in Canada the government runs the (un)Employment Insurance program. I don’t know if switching employers would cut you off.

Switching employers does not automatically disqualify you for unemployment benefits in Washington state. In this case, the previous employer would be off the hook for additional liability because the employee did quit, so the state (and/or second employer) would pay the benefits. (If the previous employer had laid the employee off, then the employee had been fired from a second employer, both employers would pay a portion of the additional benefits).

I really can’t speak to Florida’s laws. I would be a little surprised if it did work this way, but not shocked.

Now… my question to you is whether you’re sure the employee did not quit the second job. And if you are sure, then are you sure the employer agreed that the firing was involuntary and without cause? Employers often try to get out of paying unemployment benefits by claiming that the employee quit or was fired for some cause. Some employers even lie about this because they figure some employees won’t appeal the decision.

Not quite the same situations, but close, and I think your friend should file an appeal.

I’ve collected UC three times, all after voluntary quits. I quit a job and started a new job with an employer who had no work available in the summer, so I was temporarily laid off for three months. I was granted UC based on earnings from the previous employer.

I quit a job in Seattle and relocated to Iowa. In Iowa, the job I got didn’t pay as much as the job I left in Seattle, and get this – I was paid UC because my earnings at the new job were so much lower than the job I quit.

I also collected after quitting a job in Seattle because the company moved. I didn’t have a car and a bus commute would have taken 2-3 hours.

So in some circumstances (in Iowa and Washington) you can get benefits after quitting a job.

It’s possible you’re not getting the whole story. Your friend might be fudging about what happened at the second job. Or maybe Florida’s laws are just different.

I saw the termination letter. It definitely said the termination was “without prejudice”. I don’t remember exactly what my friend said the exit interviewer said. I seem to recall there being some wiggle room in the wording. What I understood the gist to be, “As far as where concerned you are eligible for unemployment.” The terminating company has not denied UI claims, but that may be due to the short length of time of employment. I seem to recall that they were fairly generous with severance pay though.

It wouldn’t. In Canada, the Employment Insurance program is a federal program, and it works like regular insurance. Premiums are paid by employees (through payroll deductions) as well as employers; claims are paid from the pool of funds created by paid premiums. As long as the terminated employee has paid the premiums for the past X months (not sure how many), he or she can make an EI claim and collect EI benefits no matter how many employers he or she has worked at during that time.

We had a similar situation just after 9-11, in the company I worked for. We had four people give their notices in the start of Sept 2001. Then after 9-11 hit, all four of those employees lost their jobs they were going to go for.

The company I worked for was also laying off people after 9-11 so they refused to take back the resignations of those four people who quit. Those four people filed claims with our company and the the companies that rescinded the job offers. Those people all lost out

This is why you have to be very careful what you sign on any exit interview. If I was let go I would refuse to sign anything. Companies have been known to fire you and then try to trick you into signing a resignation letter to prevent unemployment collection.