News & Press

State Unemployment Maximum Claim Guide

If you’re an employer, the stakes just got higher!

Consistent with UTCA’s ongoing efforts to keep our clients current on increasing UI claims costs, we have prepared a quick reference document of nationwide maximum claim potential liability. Generally, traditional trends continue with slight increases noted. Many states remaining the same – while others have seen significant increases since 2020, due to upward pressure on wages and funding deficits arising from the pandemic. Massachusetts far and away pays the highest total liability ($29,220), at over $5,000 higher than the next closest state (Washington), with a 14% increase since 2020.

Several states, such as Florida, have pending proposals set to increase historically low potentials.

Please find the updated guide here , to find the new Maximum Potential Liabilities for each state.

By |Blog, News & Press|Comments Off on State Unemployment Maximum Claim Guide

National Unemployment Legislative Update

Constant Change in Nationwide UI Landscape



Pandemic-fueled federal and state mandates have drastically affected Unemployment law, policy and  regulations since March of 2020. As state administration, legislators and UI agencies come to grips with the recovery many pandemic provisions are being lifted or temporarily modified. Many states are also taking the opportunity to reform legacy regulations via new proposed bills. UTCA has worked to stay in front of this ever-changing environment and is happy to provide you with the latest UI Legislative update to reference the changes effecting your state of operation. Please Click below to read:

UTCA Q1 2021 UI Legislative Update

If you have any questions regarding the current status of UI legislation in your state or states, please contact us!

By |Blog, Employer Resources, News & Press|Comments Off on National Unemployment Legislative Update

Massachusetts UI Solvency “Fix” with Gov. Baker for Signature


The Massachusetts State Senate followed the lead of the House of Representatives and passed the bill H3702 addressing some immediate relief to MA UI tax paying employers, all of whom were negatively and substantially affected by the increase in catastrophic Unemployment Insurance solvency assessments, with no warning.

The bill, if signed by Governor Baker, will lower the Solvency Assessment from 9.23 to 1.12 percent. However, MA employers will still have to foot this bill, as it will spread the $7.4 billion bill for COVID unemployment benefits over 20 years through certain types of borrowing. Thereby strapping all employers with two decades of surcharges, rendering us less competitive than neighboring states. As periods of economic expansion and downturn typically run in 10-year cycles, Baystate employers can reasonably expect to pay this surcharge, through two future economic downturns.

Without disclosure from Gov. Baker or Leadership at the State House as to how Federal stimulus funds would be prioritized, legislators saw fit to put the entire Covid Relief benefits cost on businesses — choosing to have employers “go it alone” without Federal relief funds to address UI insolvency. This, despite Federal Stimulus funds having been released to be used for replenishing state Trust Funds among other purposes.

The Massachusetts DUA will recalculate rates for all employers and send out new notices for the new bills. Quarter 1 UI bills will be delayed again until July 31 and employers will pay their Q1 and Q2 bills at the same time. If ultimately approved, payment for first-quarter unemployment insurance bills will be delayed until July 31, at the same time payment for second quarter will also be due and the solvency cost reduced on that date. Employers who already paid their 2021 first-quarter bills will receive a tax credit against future UI assessments.

The DUA will remove $7.4 billion in COVID-19 related unemployment claims from the solvency fund and place that money in a new COVID-19 account which will be paid off by twenty-year bonds and a special COVID-19 assessment on employers for 2021 and 2022.  However, the DUA could extend the assessment beyond 2022 depending on how fast the state pays down the debt in the new COVID-19 account. This assessment appears to be annual as the statutory language does not specify whether it will be spread out over 4 quarters or done in one quarter which may give the DUA certain flexibility. We are waiting for clarification on this matter. This is in addition to the Federal Interest Excise tax, most likely to begin Q3.

As mentioned, The COVID-19 assessment is a surcharge which will amount to roughly an 11% increase on the employer’s total bill for the year compared to 2020.  This legislation is reducing the solvency assessment by 8%, but the Solvency Assessment was charged against the taxable wage base. As a result, the high solvency rate increased employer’s total UI bills astronomically (i.e. 200%, 300% or more). We certainly hope this new COVID-19 surcharge will only increase employer’s total bills by 11%.  And the assurance this bill does NOT represent an 11% tax against the taxable wage base. The relief will be the difference between employer’s original 2021 bill and the new 2021 bill the DUA will issue once rates are recalculated. Depending on a company’s UI experience, some employers might possibly pay less in Q1 2021 than they did in Q1 2020.

Finally, commencing August 1, Massachusetts will begin charging all COVID-19 related layoffs directly to the employer again, meaning the effects of any future layoffs will be seen in the following year’s assessment charges.

UTCA will continue to press on legislators and the administration to advocate for usage of available ARPA funds to lessen this tremendous legacy or repayment being unnecessarily levied on employers. If you have questions, or would like to learn more about how you to make your voice heard on this important topic, please contact .


By |Blog, News & Press|Comments Off on Massachusetts UI Solvency “Fix” with Gov. Baker for Signature

Massachusetts UI Solvency and Tax Rate Increase Update

What’s Happened?

It’s been an action-packed two weeks for UTCA! Many Massachusetts employers are still coming to terms with the grim unemployment tax escalations they are experiencing. If you are not yet aware of the issue, you can read our previous post here.

We continue to bring awareness and action to the issue, by engaging media, employer advocacy groups, chambers of commerce and other industry associations. We would like to thank media outlets for featuring UTCA to bring light to the crisis in the following articles:

Boston Business Journal 4/15

Boston Business Journal 4/9

Masslive 4/15

Masslive 4/8 

In addition, UTCA has taken to the airwaves to tell the story:

BusinessTalk with talks with Suzanne Murphy, CEO and founder of Unemployment Tax Control Associates in Springfield

And in a quick and successful mobilization effort, UTCA aligned with the ERC5 chamber to bring an emergency session to over 150 concerned employer attendees to provide:

An explanation of the current state of the crisis with real world employer examples

• A practical way for employers to calculate their 2021 UI cost increase

• Employer resources to alert their local legislators of the personal impact felt as a result of the solvency assessment increase

If you missed this discussion, you can view the recording and access the resources here . You can also view the recording here:

Where Are We Now?

The early outcry driven by UTCA, individual employers and other efforts by organizations such as the Retailers Association of Massachusetts (RAM) have been heard by Mass. legislature and the Baker administration. Shortly after the ERC5 event, the DUA announced that the deadline for Q1 UI tax contributions would be extended past the original 4/30/21 deadline to 6/1/21. The DUA cited that the administration is reviewing the solvency rate increase and will provide more information. Since then, Governor Baker has responded in a Boston Business Journal article stating, “We do have some ideas about how to mitigate some of the hit, especially on some of the folks, small businesses who saw very big increases in their rates, especially at a point in time when we all know small businesses (have) paid a really heavy price all the way through Covid.” He also added, “One of the reasons we asked for the delay in making payments was so we could process some of these ideas,” saying a proposal could be expected “soon.”

What Can We Do?

We see the deadline and Governor Baker’s comments as encouraging and positive first steps. However, we urge employers to continue making their voices heard and share their stories with local legislators. If you’re a Massachusetts business that has been negatively affected by the solvency assessment and UI tax rate increase, whether you are or aren’t a UTCA client, please feel free to contact us to learn how you can help the effort. We can provide you with quick cost calculations and a sample letter with links to your local legislator. And if you like, you can bolster your effort or singularly sign this petition . Please note, we DO NOT require, nor are we requesting petition signers make a donation. Employers are already strained enough!

Lastly, UTCA realizes not all businesses or organizations feel comfortable taking place in actions that can be construed as political stances. While we do not believe Mass. legislators of any political affiliation should view this dire situation as a partisan issue, we respect your decision not to take action. We are not a political action or lobbying group. Our goal is to raise awareness, impart our expertise where appropriate and help our clients and non-clients alike recover from the unfortunate stresses the pandemic has caused. We hope positive relief efforts will be forthcoming that will benefit all Mass. employers, their workers and their communities.

Stay tuned!



By |News & Press|Comments Off on Massachusetts UI Solvency and Tax Rate Increase Update

Jaw-Dropping Update on Massachusetts 2021 Unemployment Tax Rates

Each year, Massachusetts “tax paying” employers (not Reimbursable employers) pay an annual statutory UI Solvency Assessment. The solvency rate used in the calculation of each company’s UI experience for 2021 was announced today and is quickly reverberating through the employer community.  The Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance has set the rate at 9.23%, which is an approximate 1500% increase from last year’s rates! The uniform solvency assessment is designed to cover the cost of benefit payments not directly chargeable to individual employers. However, as required by the non-charging provisions of the CARES Act, all regular Massachusetts COVID-19 related claims paid to eligible workers employed by contributory employers (for-profit and tax paying) are “relieved” to the state’s Solvency fund. This rate is computed annually in accordance with the statutory requirements of M.G.L Chapter 151A and is not within the discretion of the DUA to modify.

Employers in the Commonwealth recently received good news with the unemployment insurance rate freeze locking rates at “Schedule E” for 2 years. This clearly is news on the other end of the spectrum. Employers were not forewarned of the extreme Solvency Assessment escalation and the DUA has indicated the 9.23% rate is due to state law and cannot be overridden by their agency.

To distill this further, Covid-19 related claims were not directly “charged” to the individual experience rated accounts of Massachusetts employers in 2021.  Thus, the earned rate of employers was not subject to escalation as a direct result of Covid-19 claim payments.  The payments were re-directed and charged to the Solvency Fund financed by ALL employers through the Solvency Assessment surcharge, as a shared cost.  This policy prevented many employers from developing negative reserve balances, which would have likely made their 2021 UI base tax rate even higher.  However, it seems now the state aware of the Trust Fund status and solvency mechanism, relied upon the use of this mandated assessment to replenish the Solvency Fund.  In short, they simply shifted the direct rate escalation and liability (due to the forced shut down of our economy) to another line item of every employer’s rate notice. Even those who may have maintained full employment or experienced very little in claim activity.  Regrettably, the DUA and government officials did not alert the employer community, nor provide them sufficient opportunity to mobilize legislative interventions to off-set the impact of this measure.

As the Solvency Fund historically pays for dependency allowances and state funded extended benefits, which were substantially greater last year with the historical increase in unemployment insurance claims – it is not hard to see how the fund would be depleted. Unfortunately, the Solvency Assessment Rate is not discretionary, and the Secretary does not have the ability to set a rate that will not result in a balanced Solvency Fund.  It appears the only way this matter can be addressed is through Legislative action. UTCA has already initiated steps to pursue any and all forms of redress, including engaging legislators directly to pursue legislative remedies immediately. It is our understanding President Biden’s recent infusion of stimulus funds to state governments may be eligible to offset UI Trust Fund insolvency, and we support any calls to do so.

We are asking our clients and impacted employers to contact your legislators  to address this unprecedented and unsustainable cost increase to our very vulnerable employer community.  It is our humble opinion, employers still recovering from economic devastation of the pandemic, are in no position to withstand additional tax burdens and this will ultimately cause more job losses.

Please stand by for more updates and information related to UTCA’s activities to pursue legislative relief and galvanize a coalition of employers in this effort.  Timothy Phelan, General Counsel, Suzanne Murphy, CEO and Evan Murphy, Director of Business Development will be spear-heading efforts related to mobilizing clients in addressing the Solvency Assessment.


Atty. Timothy Phelan: (413) 686-9275


Suzanne Murphy: (413) 686-9271


Evan Murphy: (413) 686-9877

By |News & Press|Comments Off on Jaw-Dropping Update on Massachusetts 2021 Unemployment Tax Rates

Massachusetts Unemployment Excise Rate Pending Approval with Baker


Taxing Times

Massachusetts Bill H.90 “An Act financing a program for improvements to the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund and providing relief to employers and workers in the Commonwealth” is currently pending Governor Charlie Baker’s approval. The bill has gained a lot of publicity as employer-friendly legislation that would prevent a potential increase (tax schedule E to G) of UI tax rates by 60% for some employers. With the massive UI payouts as a result of the pandemic, the commonwealth’s UI trust fund is likely to be insolvent by 2022. So in a move to prevent insolvency without dramatically increasing the UI tax schedule, Bill H.90 proposes an additional “excise rate” that will be assessed to employers along with their current UI contribution rate. The excise rate increases with the base UI contribution rate. You can view the proposed schedule below or view a separate attachment here.

Mass Bill H.90 Unemployment Excise Table

What does this mean to you?

It seems all but certain the proposed bill will be signed. Shortly thereafter, the Massachusetts DUA will have to work to get out all the 2021 Massachusetts Annual Tax Rate Notices  to employers which have been delayed. The notices should feature the new excise rate as well. Until those notices are issued, employers, their payroll providers or TPAs cannot file their quarterly employment and wage detail filings. Q1 2021 filings are typically due by 4/30/21. It is unclear if any extensions will result due to the delay in tax rate notices that are typically received between mid- December and mid- January.

As a tax-rated employer in Massachusetts that had to layoff or furlough employees due to the pandemic, there is a chance that the Covid-related charge relief efforts extended by the state kept you from significant tax increases. Raising the UI tax-rate schedule would have seriously reduced the positive effect of that relief. Depending on how severe or how long your reductions were (or still are) the smaller proposed “Excise Rate” might be palatable to you. As an employer who was fortunate enough not to be greatly affected by the pandemic, your outlook is likely less rosy as you figure out how to budget for this additional expense.

Whatever your viewpoint might be, the key to controlling unemployment cost is the same. It is now more important than EVER before to seize every opportunity you have to limit UI benefit charges to your account. With benefit charge payments higher than ever before and the new excise rate, the cost associated with missing or surrendering protest opportunities has become much higher.

D0 you feel like you don’t have the insight you need? Do you understand what your unemployment activity is telling you?  Does it feel like you’re paying claims you shouldn’t be?  Feel free to contact us here, we’re here to help in any way we can.

By |Blog, News & Press|Comments Off on Massachusetts Unemployment Excise Rate Pending Approval with Baker

APRA and unemployment – what employers need to know!

ARPA Unemployment


The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021  Act has passed.  You’ve now sifted through all the articles about the third stimulus check and I’m sure your mind goes to the next most exciting question…..which unemployment provisions were affected?!

Many of the provisions enacted in the CARES Act were extended, as they were set to expire as of Sunday, 3/14/21. Here’s a brief refresher and explanation of what effect ARPA has now:

Greater Non-Profit Relief

From UTCA’s standpoint, this may be the single most significant and needed change to the previous federal relief efforts. Non-profit, reimbursable (or “self-funded”) employers incurred disproportionately higher unemployment costs that have had severe impacts to their operations. Due to the mechanisms of how state trust funds are funded, reimbursable employers were left out of the same 100% federal relief of Covid-19 related benefit charges. The CARES Act called for a 50% reimbursement of these charges. Some non-profits were fortunate enough to be in states that increased relief to 100%, but most states adopted the federal guidance at 50%. Under ARPA, that rate of relief increases to 75% from 3/15 through 9/6. While this is a positive step, UTCA continues to advocate for 100% relief and hopes local and state legislators persevere to include greater forgiveness in future legislation.

Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) 

This brand-new for 2020 program was a scramble to get instituted across all the state unemployment agencies. Being paid through federal funds, it offers a $600 per week payment to those traditionally ineligible to receive unemployment benefits (self-employed, gig workers, 1099s) who were unable to work due to Covid-19. The passing of ARPA will now extend the weeks of benefit payment eligibility to 9/6/2021.

Federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (FPUC)

FPUC is the often-discussed, sometimes controversial weekly “boost” provided by the federal government in addition to the state issued weekly benefit amount. This is relative to those who normally qualify for state unemployment and who are unable to work due to Covid-19. In most states this is a period of 26 weeks, though some vary as high as 30 weeks (Massachusetts) and some as low as 12 weeks (North Carolina).  This weekly boost was originally set at an additional $600 per week on TOP of state benefits. Many wondered if this rich benefit deterred some claimants from returning to work, as in some states the $600 was exponentially higher than the max benefit rate allowed. After the expiration on 7/31/20, the Lost Wages Assistance Act provided some relief in the fall of 2020, but most commonly at a reduced rate of $300 per week and most payments were issued until the week of 9/5/20. The CARES Act extension was signed on 12/27/20 that has bought us to the current term of FPUC, which issued payments from the first week of January but again at a reduced rate of $300/week. The original outline of ARPA called for an increase of $400 per week, but ultimately was voted to remain at $300 but to extend 9/6/2021.

Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC)

PEUC is paid to individuals who have exhausted all rights to state unemployment compensation. The amount to be paid is the amount of regular compensation plus $300 per week (consistent with amount of Pandemic Unemployment Compensation). This is similar to how traditional extended UC Benefits adds weeks to regular UC and continues with the additional $300. The extension of this program from the original CARES Act, it’s extensions and now in ARPA brings the total weeks of PEUC to 53. This is after the initial state UI weeks are exhausted.

Waiting Week Reimbursement

As provided initially in the CARES Act, the federal government was reimbursing states for waiving their waiting week periods. In an effort to allow claimants to file and be paid in a timely fashion, the federal government has agreed to pay this week if states re-enter into an agreement. States varied on their adoption and expiration of this waiver, with some ending it as early as April of 2020, while some states never had established waiting week policies. Similar to the previously mentioned extensions, ARPA will make this waiver available through 9/6/21.

Aiding Administration and Fighting Fraud

ARPA has allotted eight billion dollars to aid efforts in processing claims more efficiently. Unfortunately, the pandemic exposed many of the legacy processes and platforms that state UC agencies had relied on. Coupled with a trend of reducing their own workforces prior to Covid-19, massive claim backlogs, system crashes, employer and claimant complaints have resulted. The CARES Act had provided funds to enact changes, and it is understood that much of these funds were used on creating systems to properly administer the new PUA programs at the state level. It is unclear what these federal funds are contingent upon and if updating state systems that aren’t relative to carrying out “Federal activities relating to the administration of unemployment compensation program” would qualify.

With the historic claim levels came an even more shocking number of fraudulent unemployment claims. Every state has been impacted, causing a massive strain on state agencies, employers and their employees who are the direct victims of the UI fraud schemes. Measures to combat these attacks have been inconsistent, and in some instances created greater exposure of claimant data. Worst yet, means to add security measures such as additional ID verifications steps have greatly slowed claims processing times. Per ARPA, the federal government has dedicated two billion dollars to “detect and prevent fraud, promote equitable access, and ensure the timely payment of benefits with respect to unemployment compensation programs”. This is much needed, but states need to be very wary of the consultants and technology they align themselves with as they rush to find solutions.

State Forgiveness and “TBD”

Also, per ARPA the federal government has agreed to extend waivers of accrued interest on loans issued to states to pay unemployment compensation. This is in effect through 9/6/21.

What ARPA does not provide a clear, specific distribution to state UI trust funds, however, states are provided with large allocations of funds that may be used to address the costs of the Pandemic. It is yet to be determined how states will be able to utilize funds and what contingencies they may be subject to. This is critical as states are weighing serious tax rate increases which could impact the cost to employers for years to come. Some states have already enacted surcharges or temporary increases, while some are agreeing to freeze rates in the short term. It’s clear that UI trust funds across the country are in danger. UTCA is working to verify what it available to states and how the funds can be used.


Is your head spinning yet? As we continue to “unpack” this enormous bill we will continue to track how the states will adopt these new programs and extensions. If you have questions as to how this might relate to your workplace or employees, don’t be afraid to contact us here .



By |Blog, News & Press|Comments Off on APRA and unemployment – what employers need to know!

More Weeks, More Charges and the $600 Question

Covid-19 UnemploymentAs employers continue to navigate through the Covid-19 pandemic, the CARES Act has provided a tremendous amount of optimism. UTCA has been diligently providing insight to clients, non-clients, human resources and industry associations as they all pose their unique situations. Among the economic provisions being extended to businesses of all size and scope, the unemployment implications are still evolving.

Since the passing of the CARES Act., many are curious as to how and when the additional UI supplements are being issued. Pressure mounting from curious furloughed employees is inundating not only the state unemployment agencies, but HR departments as well. So we hope to shed some light on the current status so you can keep your employees and departments informed.

It is important to understand that while the federal government has passed several tiers of unemployment relief (read the summary here), the individual state agencies now must work directly administer these federal provisions. There is not a universally outlined implementation process from the U.S. Department of Labor that can easily integrate into the state systems. Coupled with the tremendous operational demand of new claim filings, state agencies are incredibly taxed. From a sheer technology perspective, instituting these new processes will be a challenge.

Of the many questions we’ve fielded, common echoes have been heard:

A furloughed employee filed with the state, but has only been approved for 26 weeks. They want to know why they aren’t getting the additional 13 weeks?

The additional 13 weeks of benefits as defined in PEUC (Section 2107) will be provided to the claimants after exhausting their state unemployment allowable weeks (typically 26 weeks), totaling 39 weeks of available benefits. In most instances, it is likely the state agencies will not show the federally extended benefits expressed in their initial eligibility determinations.

In more traditional times, extended benefits (the great recession, natural disasters) state agencies have paid the initial 26 weeks (more or less depending on the state) with the extended week’s “tab” being reimbursed by the federal government. We are hopeful that most claimants affected by Covid-19 will have returned to work before having to utilize federally extended benefits.

 They were only approved for their weekly benefit amount of $XXX.XX, but they aren’t getting the additional $600 per week as promised, why were they denied?

Currently, every state unemployment agency has agreed to the provisions in the CARES Act. Per the provisions, the additional $600 per week can be issued as early as 4/5/2020 until 7/31/2020. Although all states have made agreements, some may not have implemented the mechanisms necessary to process the additional weekly payments. Some agencies such as the New York Department of Labor are slated to pay the additional $600/week now.

As many states are still working through their individual process for distributing these funds, it’s likely many states will stall and retroactive payments may be issued. It is important to note that these additional $600 allotments may not be shown in a claimant’s initial monetary determination of their standard state weekly benefit amount. So this expectation may be helpful when advising your concerned furloughed employees.

We’re a non-profit, reimbursable employer and the CARES Act only seems to allow us relief of half of our Covid-19 related charges, is this true?

It is true that the CARES Act currently only identifies “partial” benefit charge reimbursement related to Covid-19 as “generally 50 percent”. However, individual states may offer additional terms of relief in the future. Additionally, the guidance allows states “maximum flexibility” in granting extensions of benefit charge payments due by non-profits. For example, pending bill no. 2618 in Massachusetts proposes a 120-day extension of scheduled payment without penalty or interest. UTCA has been continuously engaged with several industry associations that are strongly advocating for equitable relief for all employers.

Interestingly, per Section 2103 of the CARES Act states “…partial reimbursements apply to all payments made during this time period, even if the unemployed individual is not unemployed as a result of Covid-19.. UTCA is actively trying to confirm this tenant, and how it will be interpreted by individual states.

In It Together

We understand and empathize with all of you weighing the future of your workforce with business needs in mind, all while trying to dissect so much new information. While all the answers aren’t yet cemented as it relates to UI, we hope this piece helps you communicate expectations internally and to your employees with bit more confidence. We will continue to update you as specific state regulations pass.

If you have a specific question you would like to pose about your workforce, we’re happy to help any way we can. Please feel free to can contact us here.

By |Blog, News & Press|Comments Off on More Weeks, More Charges and the $600 Question

UI Phone Hearings and Coronavirus – Temporary or New Norm?

Unemployment Covid-19

We’ve seen state unemployment agencies transition to phone hearings as opposed to “live” or in-person hearings, for some time now. Amidst the COVID-19 scare and social distancing guidelines, states such as Massachusetts have limited the format to telephone-only. While moves like these may be a temporary response, telephonic unemployment hearings might become the new norm for states that previously allowed for “live” format. It’s never been more crucial to brush up on telephonic hearing preparedness than it is right now.

One differentiation of telephonic hearings is the documentation and presentation of evidence. As the witness is not there in person, documentary evidence cannot be provided directly to the Judge (Referee, Examiner, etc.) as the hearing is being conducted. It is imperative you send new documentation not previously submitted at the Determination level, in advance to both the state agency and the claimant. Judges can exclude written, relevant evidence if that individual state’s procedures are not followed and/or the claimant has not been provided access to such evidence.

A key disadvantage to the telephone hearing is that the Judge does not have the ability to observe witnesses. Lacking are cues from the claimant’s face, body language, movements, demeanor etc. These factors are substantial when it comes to determining the credibility of witnesses. Thus, the Judge will be making their determination regarding witness credibility in less than ideal circumstances. In addition, it is well known through various studies, people are more likely to lie when they are not confronted face-to-face.

Important Dos & Don’ts for Phone Hearings:

  • Be sure to follow the registration or notification process as outlined by the state agency. Some states may provide a number to call to connect, while others require advanced registration requirements to provide numbers so the judge can contact you. Failing to follow these steps may leave you in default or delay the process and get you off on the wrong foot!


  • Presentation skills must be adjusted in this setting. A well-modulated voice, which conveys confidence, quick, direct, firm answers to questions as well as the ability to reference a document efficiently without scrambling through a file, can do much to create an impression of credibility.


  • Witnesses must provide crisp, clear and professional testimony. UTCA assists clients to be prepared and know the case facts. As witnesses cannot be observed thoughtfully considering a response—too long a pause can appear slow and uncertain. An inadequate response may be looked upon as unfavorable or that a witness is ad-libbing.


  • Remember to speak audibly! And, if anyone cannot hear another party during the hearing, quickly let this be known. This is a procedural option and not a violation of protocol. Do not wait until midway through the proceeding to make the Judge aware of this detriment.


  • Multiple witnesses: It is always best to have them in the same room, on the same speakerphone if possible. Given the current state of quarantining and social distancing this might not be possible. Multiple lines or locations often irritate Judges and increase the chance of technical failures, but under current circumstances this may be the safest option for most employers.


  • Always have the case file paperwork available, directly in front of you. Please review it prior to the hearing one last time.


  • Judges often become very annoyed if they hear a phone ring, a ping of an arriving text or some other avoidable sound. In addition, all other devices, computers, faxes etc., should be turned off. All environmental noises should also be eliminated.


  • Stay on the Judge’s good side! Remember, they are the decision maker and assess credibility. Be at your phone at the start of the hearing, waiting for the call to come in. Judges get audibly annoyed being put on hold for witnesses to be located. This is similar to being “late” for a live hearing. Use direct dial numbers if available to avoid transfers and disconnects.


  • DO NOT talk while somebody else is testifying. While this is also true for a “live” hearing, it is more important for a telephone hearing as the Judge may not be able to distinguish who is or isn’t speaking.


  • DO NOT cross talk with other employer witnesses. If you are heard whispering to another person during the hearing, it gives the appearance you are looking for assistance in answering a question, and may be providing less than truthful testimony.


Nervous about your next hearing or deliberating an appeal?  Contact us here!

By |Blog, News & Press|Comments Off on UI Phone Hearings and Coronavirus – Temporary or New Norm?

Devil is in the Detail – Keys to Winning Attendance-based UI Claims

Winning an unemployment case is a difficult task as it is, even more so when it involves absenteeism or tardiness. Unfortunately, most absentee cases are determined by the final incident. It’s no secret we can’t be present for every final incident to ensure not only the proper steps are taken to follow company policy, but proper documentation is occurring as well. Ultimately, this means front-line managers and supervisors must recognize the importance of this information. Most employers have well-established and comprehensive written attendance policies, and require their employees to sign-off that they have received the handbook or policy.


Despite their best efforts, sometimes even thorough employers fail to make specific distinctions in their policies such as:

When is a doctor’s note required?
• What is considered excessive absenteeism?
• Who are they to communicate their tardiness  or absence to?
• What is an acceptable means of communicating tardiness or an absence (call, text, email)?
• When is an absence considered excused or unexcused?

Problems for employers with absenteeism (and other time related policy issues) generally originate with the manner in which the employer documents day-to-day violations. Employers may have detailed policies spelling out the aforementioned attendance issues – it is the documentation process that often determines a win or loss in the unemployment arena. Management must remember: pure numbers of absences or tardiness may violate your policy and justify a legal discharge but do not guarantee a winning unemployment case, or even a strong unemployment case.

To make your case much stronger, it means more than just logging the dates of absenteeism, tardiness and corrective action. You must document everything for each and every absence or instance of tardiness. Specifically:

• What exact time did they communicate their absence /tardiness?
• Who called in, the employee themselves or a family member, friend, etc.?
• With whom did they speak or when was the message received?
• Did they leave a voice message?
• Did you save the message, email or text?
• What was the exact reason or excuse given?
• Did they provide a doctor’s note?
• What did the manager/supervisor say in response to the call?
• What was the employee’s start and finish time?
• Did the manager/supervisor make any requests of the employee?

Again, the importance is always placed on a final incident. When pressed for a claimant’s excuse for the final incident, a supervisor may say: “It was always something about their car”. Looking at the claimant’s statement to the unemployment office they may say their car wouldn’t start. The claimant will be found eligible and the employer will lose any protest because we can’t dispute their statement. In a different scenario, if the supervisor documents the final excuse on paper as “my car broke down on the way to work” and the claimant tells the unemployment office “my car wouldn’t start”, you have an inconsistent statement casting doubt on the credibility of the claimant which can turn a very weak case into a likely winner.
Employers have won cases based on the variety of dramatic excuses given by a claimant over time for absenteeism (cat had emergency surgery; fire-truck blocked me in on my street; power failure in area; pipe burst in my apartment; a baseball shattered my windshield). Some excuses can be so outlandish and inconsistent that it paves the way for a much easier disqualification. Whether it’s an outrageous story or a seemingly slight nuance in a statement, solid documentation will always be extremely helpful.

More is Less, and That’s Good

What’s the lesson in all this? Contrary to the old “Less is More” adage, employers that record more detail in the documentation process, will likely result in paying less out in UI benefits for absence and time related separations. See what we did there?

Are attendance claims a sore spot? Contact us here !

By |Blog, News & Press|Comments Off on Devil is in the Detail – Keys to Winning Attendance-based UI Claims