I was laid off but still denied, due to a loophole I don't meet the criteria

by Susan
(FL)

I was laid off in a merger in Oct 2007. My claim was denied and I appealed twice. The reason they gave me (after many calls and weak/confusing explanation) was that I didn't meet the criteria for being employed long enough or hadn't earned enough. Actually, I was, and did, however my guess is that I'd been a Realtor for 2 years prior to the job that laid me off (Realtor = an independent contractor), they said I hadn't been employed enough of the 13 months prior to my layoff.

They don't take into account the fact I'd been working full time, paying into the system, since 1986, but when I got let go from a company in Dec 2005, I went and got my real estate license and was pursuing that for a short time, but soon after, the real estate market went south, so I went back into a full time corporate position in May 2007; but 5 months later that company went through a merger and I was let go. That's when FL unemployment commission said "no".

Now, in a horrible economy, here I am 2 years later, still unemployed, and without unemp benefits. Do I have any hope of getting anything out of them?

Many Thanks,
Susan


Hi Susan,

You've got all the details exactly right. Florida doesn't consider real estate agents on commission as "covered employment".

And the reason they couldn't monetarily qualify you is because of the stinkin standard base period which only considers 12 months of employment .. but that period is the first 4 of the last 5 COMPLETED quarters relative to the date you filed.

Florida, so far has left all stimulus money on the table because they refused to change any of their laws .. creating an alternative base period would have been one way to get some of it.

I don't have the dates .. but if I were you .. I'd try to requalify when those 5 months of wages show up in your base period.

Another requirement for qualifying monetarily in almost every single state is that you have wages in at least two quarter of your base period.

They use the high quarter wages to determine the WBA and they insist you have a minimum somewhere else in your base period just to make sure you have an "attachment to the labor market".

God forbid anyone try to take advantage of the system .. personally, it think it works fairly well, but that was before the "great recession".

It's not working so well now, when it's common for someone to be unemployed for a year and more.