THEODORE A MALVITZ, Employee

BENCHMARK REPLACEMENT PARTS LLC, Employer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 8 of 2010, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times the employee's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed September 30, 2010
malvith . usd : 178 : 1 VL 1037

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

In his petition for commission review, the employee argues that it is unfair that he is ineligible for benefits after he quit to take a better job and was only permitted to work three days. He asks if the $7500 settlement he received from the new employer counts as wages for requalifying purposes.

Although the employee quit for a valid reason, he is required to earn requalifying wages before he is again eligible. Unfortunately, proceeds received in a settlement will not satisfy the requalifying requirement. In order to requalify for benefits, the employee must earn wages after the week of the termination equal to at least four times her weekly benefit rate. See Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(a). While the settlement may be deemed taxable income by the Internal Revenue Service, it cannot be considered earned wages for the purposes of the unemployment statute. Hayne v. Department of Corrections, UI Hearing No. 99603516RC (LIRC Aug. 4, 1999). Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2010/11/02