Uh, let me think .. should I get a quickie divorce or protect my rights to unemployment benefits in case something else comes up which I might be able to collect for?
Trailing a spouse to a new location from which it is impracticable to commute is a common theme for denial of unemployment benefits .. at least it use to be.
Stimulus money for unemployment tempted and then persuaded many states to “modernize suggested areas of their statutes” to get the money.
Quitting for Compelling Family Reasons was one of the areas suggested by the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act aka the stimulus).
Before this, there were a number of states that allowed “military spouses the ability to quit and collect when they followed or trailed their spouse to a new station, but trailing civilian spouses was most often excluded.
This might of meant that some civilian spouses could have used this as an excuse to precipitate a quickie divorce.
But the more likely scenario would be that of needing two incomes, but found that maintaining two households caused the same result .. financial stress on the family .. and we all know that money and it’s stresses are a big factor when it comes to maintaining family har-money.
Alright already, I’ll get to the point of this post.
The Laws Changed, But the UI Departments Aren’t Paying Attention To The Fact That They Changed
At least some of the time they aren’t.
I received an email about a Wisconsin determination denying benefits to a spouse of a United States Marine wh .. and this is what it said:
The employee quit but not for a reason which would allow the payment of benefits. She quit her job to move to another state to be with her husband. While she may have had a valid personal reason for quitting it is not within any of the exceptions that would allow for the payment of benefits. No benefits are payable from 01/24 to 02/27 and until the employee earns wages after the week of the quit equaling at least $944.00 in covered employment.
I of course now double check for these type of questions at the USDOL.
Apparently, Wisconsin forgot they changed the rules in this person’s determination .. or they might be waiting for interpretations or precedents based on the new statutes.
Personally, I would expect better from Wisconsin. They are a very “pro-claimant” state and exceedingly generous with provisions favoring the unemployed.
I’m not quite sure why they don’t even acknowledge that trailing a spouse to a new location may be an exception now .. but given that WI is a state I consider to be friendly to the unemployed .. I suggest that if you live in any other state that you do some double-checking of your own.
The lesson to be learned is that just because you are denied benefits .. does not mean you should have been denied benefits .. but you have to investigate .. because even the state, the impartial judge of whether you can get benefits or not make mistakes all the time.
Turn your deductive reasoning powers on and get your fight on!!
Or cry about it .. it’s your bank account and it’s your choice.