Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Unemployment Requests From Former Employees

Client Alert
April 29, 2020

Have you received a Request for Information or Unemployment Award Decision from the a state unemployment agency for an employee who left your employ weeks or months ago? With the dramatic rise of unemployment filings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers are receiving unemployment decisions or requests for employment information for former employees who have not been employed by them for a great period of time. 

Under most state unemployment laws, employers can be liable for a former employee’s unemployment benefits up to a year from departure of employment. The standard principles governing an employer’s liability for unemployment benefits continue to control these former employee situations. Meaning, if the employer terminated the employee without just cause or previously laid the employee off in the last year, the employer will likely be liable for the former employee’s unemployment benefits up to a year after departure, even if the employee started new employment immediately after departure.

On the other hand, if for example your former employee resigned or quit employment to take a position with a new employer or to move away, the employer will likely be able to avoid unemployment liability by responding to the information request and providing that the employee resigned or quit on their own accord. The same conclusion also holds true if you terminated the former employee for just cause.

In all cases, regardless of the reason for departure, the former employer will receive a request for information from an unemployment commission as employees have to list all employers over the last year. Therefore, employers must complete and timely respond to these requests for information, including the details surrounding the departure. Employers should include all relevant information as well, including resignation letters/emails or handbook provisions that have been violated leading to a termination. 

If an unemployment commission ultimately holds you, as the former employer, liable for unemployment benefits, it is important that you timely appeal these decisions, including all supporting legal and factual arguments and documents. Otherwise, even as the former employer, you will remain liable for up to 100% of the unemployment benefits award to the former employee.

Bryan Meek is a member of Brennan, Manna & Diamond’s Labor & Employment team and is available to assist you with responding to requests for information and/or appealing unfavorable unemployment decisions. Bryan can be reached at 330.253.5586, or bmeek@bmdllc.com.

Unemployment award decisionunemployment agencyunemployment filingsCOVID-19
Client Alert

Telehealth Flexibility Updates: HIPAA, DEA, and CMS

May 12, 2023The Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) officially ended on May 11, 2023. But what does that mean for telehealth, a field that expanded exponentially during the PHE? Fortunately, many of the flexibilities will remain intact, at least temporarily. This client alert presents a brief overview of the timelines that providers need to follow, but for a more comprehensive review of telehealth flexibilities and when they will endClient Alert, Multimedia

WEBINAR SERIES RECAP | Ending the Public Health Emergency + Post-Pandemic Check-Up

May 10, 2023Some may take the position that the rest of the country already returned to a new “normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic.  But healthcare providers continue to implement COVID protocols and navigate the ever-changing healthcare regulations at both the federal and state levels.  It is important for healthcare providers to take time for a “Healthcare Check-Up” with the start of 2023 and the ending of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”).Client Alert

Sharp Rise in False Claims Act Cases - Navigating the FCA Waters

May 5, 2023Recently, on April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the FCA’s scienter, or mental state, requirement. To prove violation of the FCA, the statute requires that a defendant “knowingly” file false claims for payment. The term “knowingly” is defined within the statute to mean a person that acts with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Circuit courts are split on how to interpret and apply the knowledge element of the FCA, and based on the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be a large impact on healthcare defendants and their businesses as well as anyone who contracts with, or receives money from, a federal program. A broader interpretation of the FCA would unnecessarily target and stifle healthcare, and other businesses, for simple errors in daily operations. This goes against the intended application of the FCA, which was to prevent fraudulent activity.Client Alert

Areas of Opportunity in Columbus: Highlights from the Columbus Opportunity Summit

May 5, 2023On April 27, 2023 Columbus Business First held its annual Columbus Opportunity Summit, bringing together business and economic development leaders to provide an update on how Central Ohio is preparing for expected growth in the coming years, an issue heightened by the arrival of Intel at its 1,000 acre site in Licking County, just outside of Columbus. The site will be home to two new chip factories with room to grow to a total of eight factories and is a $20 Billion investment.Client Alert

BREAKING: Biden Administration Has Officially Ended the Two Remaining COVID Vaccine Mandates

May 2, 2023As of May 1, 2023, the Biden Administration has officially ended the two remaining COVID vaccine mandates: (1) the Federal Contractor Mandate, and (2) the CMS Healthcare Provider Vaccine Mandate.
Older posts