Can I collect NYS unemployment if I give two weeks notice then I'm not Scheduled
I Gave two weeks Notice Yesterday. Then I was written off the schedule.
I normally work 40 to 45 hrs per week. I gave my notice so that the store would not be short staffed and in effect was let go as soon as I gave notice.
Am I eligible to collect NYS unemployment insurance.
When this happens .. and it is more common than employees think, giving notice of quitting is often interpreted as meaning that unemployment benefits may only have the duration of the length of time you were involuntarily separated from the job without benefit of wages being paid.
Which is generally speaking, the indicated date on your last day on a notice to resign. Being walked out, usually by security as if a criminal is not enough to collect..
Although most states would allow benefits for a duration of time up to the date of the notice given if no wages were paid.
But review NY precedents, you might of lucked out and would only have your employer to thank for a rash decision if you didn't get paid through the notice and your notice was the reason for discharge.
Please see section 1605 of the NY interpretation index
#4 sounds pretty negative,
If a claimant, for reasons which do not constitute good cause, gives his employer notice of leaving the employment and agrees to remain until a replacement has been obtained, but no later than a specified final day, and his services are terminated before such final day when the employer secures the replacement, the disqualification for voluntary quit takes effect immediately although the claimant was willing to continue working. (A.B. 39,527-53; A-750-1224).
But, it's #5 that may fit your experience. Take the time to click the link and read the decision reasoning.
It's in the comments you can apply your personal knowledge of details to see if it will help.
Here's one comment in particular that grabbed my attention.This decision reaffirms the principles established by the Court of Appeals in Matter of James (34 NY 2d 491). In James, the Court held that: "causes for discharge which do not attain the level of misconduct may not be used to render
claimants ineligible for benefits. Voluntary leaving should...be confined to the giving up of employment permanently or temporarily, without cause or justification." The Appeal Board in a case similar to the present case held that: "the only statutory disqualification which may be imposed on a discharged claimant is contained In Section 593.3 of the Law...we hold, therefore, that the mere giving of notice of the intention to leave employment at a future date is not an act of misconduct... His resignation at a future date, which had not as yet occurred and which had played no part in his separation, cannot be considered in determining whether the separation was under disqualifying conditions." (A.B. 201,614A not reported).
The principle of the present decision should not be applied to cases which may appear similar but have different facts justifying a conclusion that the separation is voluntary. Following are two examples:
If a claimant resigns for reasons which do not constitute good cause, but agrees to remain until a replacement is obtained, but not later than a specified final day, and is terminated before such final day when the employer secures the replacement, a disqualification for voluntary quit should be imposed (See Index 1605 A-4; A-750-1224).
Claimant, for reasons not constituting good cause, informed her employer on Thursday, May 2, 1974, that she was quitting at the close of business, Friday, May 3,1974. The employer thereupon paid claimant her salary for the week ending May 3, 1974, and told her it was not necessary to come in to work on May 3. In reversing the referee who had ruled that claimant was discharged prior to the effective date of her resignation and did not quit, the Appeal Board held:
"She was paid through May 3,1974. It is not material that she was not required to work the last day of that week". (A.B. 201, 325; not reported) (Similarly A.B. 247, 979; not reported).
In these cases, the claimants were paid until the effective date of resignation. In effect, their employment continued, and it was immaterial that they were not required to work until the effective date of their resignation.
Hope this helps explain the situation .. at least for New York Unemployment Benefits