WA State – What Documentation or Proof Do They Ask For If You Quit For Another Job and That Job Doesn’t Materialize?

Apologies now, but your last question goes to the heart of why most all states insist that attribution of fault goes to an employer. It’s not always the employer that can be said to be at fault for why a person quit .. or doesn’t have a job now .. that gets charged for the benefits that may be paid.

Whether a state requires fault to be attributable to an employer, or allows for good personal cause when life interferes with the best laid plans and the ability to collect unemployment beyond the scope of what an employer can be blamed for, the state has to look for fault and/or avoidable circumstances that may prevent a claimant from collecting.

The last, or most recent job is not always going to be a chargeable base period employer, so most states, if finding that last separation eligible for benefits, also look at separation causes from BP employers.

Reason being, it’s usually the last base period employment a state may still need to impose any affects of a non-monetary disqualification for that employer to not be charged for something beyond it’s own ability to control .. about your unemployment claim.

In effect both misconduct and voluntary quit disqualifications are what force a person back to find bona fide work to earn new wages, before the person can requalify to begin receive benefits, should a qualifying separation occur again from a new job.

In general disqualifications are served, purged, or lifted before someone can requalify with a new or reopened unemployment claim.

(The terms of Washington State’s VQ disqualification can be found in that USDOL chartbook I linked to above.)

A claimant, when they do quit with good cause, often quit without proof of good cause. In other words they quit for a good reason, but are unable to meet the burden of proving fact to the satisfaction of UI law, or the regulations controlling conceptual arguments of good cause..

Even with an offer letter, one can see there’s still room for any chargeable employer to argue you lacked good enough cause to quit .. because an employer’s primary concern about anyone collecting benefits is their SUTA (state unemployment tax account) experiencing a tax hike when someone quits, gets fired, or a new employer doesn’t follow through on an offer of work.

For the average employer to have a good reason not to fight benefits regardless of cause of separation .. they would need a state unemployment law to provide a non-charging provision to use to argue why they should not be charged for any of your benefits. And yes, state’s do erroneously charge employers for benefits that should be coming out of the general fund all employers in a state must contribute to .. other than what rate is being charged to their SUTA.

You may have reason to hope your employer doesn’t respond given you’re speculating the chargeable employer, your last, most recent employer you quit doesn’t respond. You say you think they haven’t been paying withholding taxes .. which could translate they might not of been paying unemployment taxes on your wages also, but I for one, wouldn’t assume that to be a fact now, although I might of investigated as an employee by following up with a wage complaint that might of ended with good cause to quit.

Passive employers who don’t respond to claims (some states require this, or an employer loses appeal rights) or don’t appeal when benefits are allowed, just weren’t common to my unemployment insurance experience.

What was common .. employers who fight benefits whether right, wrong, indifferent and much less commonly .. to dumb to know intentionally not paying withholding taxes or unemployment taxes on wages, can be what kills a business faster and with more long term repercussions .. than being charged for unemployment benefits .. even if they can’t rebut effectively why an employee who quit to accept other work that fell through due to the fault of a new employer that never became a chargeable employer of the claimant.

To better Meet, or rebut the burden in unemployment law .. I don’t see things as a one sided argument, but think of positioning .. to the burden, to make a better argument.

I believe there must be enough awareness of how the issue of law is impacted by the application of law, to see your own argument, from the counter point of view, because that’s can reveal weakness in the moving party’s burden .. to exploit .. when rebutting, or plug up when proving.

Thank you Chris- I am filing my claim tomorrow and I’ll have to post back the results. I think it will ultimately lie with claim rep and hopefully my previous employer doesn’t respond at all. But does the unemployment goes against the previous employer or the new employer?