Unemployment Law Project

THE UNEMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT IS A STATEWIDE, NOT-FOR-PROFIT LAW FIRM THAT IS ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE ADVICE, EDUCATION, ADVOCACY, SERVICES, AND REPRESENTATION TO UNEMPLOYED WORKERS, TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS OF WORKERS AND UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE, TO ADVISE WORKERS, AND TO FURTHER WASHINGTON STATE RESIDENTS IN ACCESSING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

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 2021 THE UNEMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT DIRECTLY REPRESENTED 1094 PEOPLE IN HEARINGS TO SECURE THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. THIS IS THE HIGHEST NUMBER FOR THE ORGANIZATION ON RECORD. ULP ALSO ADVISED OR REFERRED TO A PRIVATE ATTORNEY PANEL A FURTHER 1,348 PEOPLE. IN THE PAST TWO YEARS ULP HAS ADVISED AND REPRESENTED PEOPLE FROM ALL 39 COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON STATE. IN 2021, ULP HAD 66 PEOPLE VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME, INCLUDING 21 ATTORNEYS WHO PROVIDED CASE SERVICES VALUED AT $54,250. THE FOLLOWING ARE A FEW CLIENT STORIES FROM OUR MANY CASES: --- ---A NON-BINARY WORKER FOR A SMALL GROCERY STORE IN TACOMA. THEY HAD PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRED WORKPLACE ACCOMMODATION. INITIALLY THE EMPLOYER PROVIDED ACCOMMODATIONS. HOWEVER, THEIR CONDITION WORSENED AND THEY HAD TO RESIGN. THEY GOT ANOTHER JOB SOON AFTER, BUT WAS FIRED BY THE LESS ACCOMMODATING EMPLOYER DUE TO MEDICALLY RELATED ABSENCES. THERE WAS A DENIAL BY EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT DUE TO A FINDING THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT FULLY ABLE TO WORK DURING THE CLAIM. ULP REPRESENTED THE CLAIMANT AT THE HEARING. THE HEARING DECISION WAS A PARTIAL VICTORY THAT ALLOWED BENEFITS FOR SOME OF THE WEEKS CLAIMED. THE CLAIMANT RECEIVED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF BENEFITS THAT HELPED WITH MANY UNPAID BILLS. AT THE START OF THE HEARING THE ULP ATTORNEY TOLD THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE THAT THE CLAIMANT USES THEY/THEM PRONOUNS AND THE HONORIFIC MX. IN THE HEARING DECISION THE JUDGE IGNORED THE REQUEST TO USE PROPER PRONOUNS. THE JUDGE MISGENDERED THE CLAIMANT THROUGHOUT THE HEARING DECISION. IN RESPONSE THE SPOKANE OFFICE ATTORNEYS SENT A LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE LORRAINE LEE TO ADDRESS THE HARM DONE TO THE CLAIMANT BY THE MISGENDERING. THE LETTER NOTED THAT THE ALJ IN THAT CASE VIOLATED THE JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT. THE LETTER ALSO ADVOCATED FOR BETTER TRAINING FOR JUDGES REGARDING LGBTQ ISSUES. ULP STAFF NOW HAVE A REGULAR MEETING WITH JUDGE LAURA BRADLEY, CHIEF ALJ FOR DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION TO ADDRESS LGBTQ, GENDER, RACE, AND OTHER EQUITY ISSUES. --- --- AN IMMIGRANT FROM THAILAND IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUSTAINED AN INJURY AT WORK. AT FIRST SHE TRIED TO WORK THROUGH THE PAIN, BUT IT BECAME SO UNBEARABLE THAT SHE REQUESTED A LEAVE OF ABSENCE. WHILE ON LEAVE SHE SENT HER HUSBAND TO PICK UP HER PAYCHECK. WHEN HE ARRIVED THE EMPLOYER ASKED HIM TO SIGN SOME PAPERWORK. THE EMPLOYER MISLED THE HUSBAND BY INDICATING THAT THE PAPERWORK WAS FOR THE LEAVE OF ABSENCE, KNOWING THAT HE COULD NOT READ OR SPEAK ENGLISH. IT WAS ACTUALLY A RESIGNATION LETTER. WHEN SHE FILED FOR BENEFITS HER CLAIM WAS DENIED AS A VOLUNTARY QUIT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE. ULP REPRESENTED HER AT THE HEARING AND BENEFITS WERE GRANTED. --- --- A 60 YEAR OLD WOMAN FROM RENTON QUIT HER JOB AT A SMALL PRIVATE MEDICAL OFFICE WHEN SHE LEANED THAT HER SUPERVISOR DID NOT INFORM HER OF EXPOSURE TO THE COVID-19 VIRUS. WHEN SHE REALIZED THAT SHE HAD BEEN EXPOSED SHE PANICKED BECAUSE SHE AND HER DAUGHTER BELONGED TO A HIGH RISK GROUP. ESD GRANTED BENEFITS AND THE EMPLOYER APPEALED. ULP REPRESENTED HER AT THE HEARING. AT THE HEARING THE EMPLOYER EXPRESSED HIS BELIEFS REGARDING THE PANDEMIC. HE SAID THAT THE VIRUS WOULD BE GONE BY THE ELECTION AND THAT IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN THE FLU. HE FURTHER STATE THAT HE ONLY TOOK MEASURES TO PRESERVE HIS LICENSE AND BLAMED THE CLAIMANT FOR BEING IN A HIGH RISK GROUP. THE HEARING JUDGE RULED IN HER FAVOR AND THERE WAS NO OVER-PAYMENT OF BENEFITS. --- --- AN AMHARIC SPEAKING IMMIGRANT FROM SOUTH KING COUNTY TOOK A MEDICAL LEAVE FROM HER JOB AS A FOOD SERVER. THE MEDICAL LEAVE WAS FOR THE BIRTH OF A CHILD. WHEN SHE WAS ABLE TO WORK AGAIN SHE STARTED HER OWN DAYCARE CENTER. HOWEVER, THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC CLOSED DAYCARE CENTERS AND SHE FILED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT. SHE WAS INITIALLY GRANTED BENEFITS, BUT WAS LATER DENIED BENEFITS BY ESD. SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE HAD AN OVERPAYMENT OF OVER $10,000 IN BENEFITS. ESD DETERMINED THAT SHE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REGULAR UNEMPLOYMENT DUE TO THE REASON FOR THE JOB SEPARATION. ESD NEVER PROCESSED HER PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (PUA) CLAIM. ULP REPRESENTED HER AT TWO HEARINGS TO RESOLVE THE MATTER. THE JUDGE GRANTED A WAIVER OF THE ENTIRE OVERPAYMENT. --- ---A US MILITARY VETERAN FROM WHITMAN COUNTY HAD TO QUIT HIS MAINTENANCE JOB DUE TO WORKPLACE HARASSMENT. HIS TWELVE YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE AIR FORCE LEFT HIM WITH POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER, ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER, OBSESSIVE COMPUSLIVE DISORDER, ANXIETY, AND DEPRESSION. HE WAS GIVEN IMPOSSIBLE WORK ASSIGNMENTS WITH LITTLE INSTRUCTION AND SUPPORT. HE BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE INCREASED HEART RATE, DIFFICULTY EATING, AND DIFFICULTY BREATHING. HE SPOKE TO HIS MANAGER ABOUT NEEDING AN ACCOMMODATION, BUT NONE WAS PROVIDED. ULP REPRESENTED HIM AT HIS HEARING. HE WAS ABLE TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE SEVERE IMPACT THE WORKPLACE HARASSMENT HAD ON HIM AND HIS MEDICAL ISSUES. HIS SPOUSE TESTIFIED ABOUT HIS CONDITION DURING THIS PERIOD. SHE TESTIFIED ABOUT HIS AGITATION, WEIGHT LOSS, AND LOSS OF SLEEP. THE HEARING JUDGE RULED IN HIS FAVOR FINDING THAT IT WAS MEDICALLY NECESSARY TO QUIT. THE EMPLOYER APPEALED TO THE COMMISSIONER'S REVIEW OFFICE. ULP WROTE A RESPONSE TO THE EMPLOYERAPPEAL. THE CRO AGREED WITH THE HEARING JUDGE AND BENEFITS WERE ALLOWED.