BESSIE E TAYLOR, Claimant

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 claimant's petition, 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, as of week 52 of 2011, the claimant is not eligible for extended benefits because she resides in Arizona, a state that was not in an extended benefit period, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.141(3r) and 20 CFR 615.

Dated and Mailed May 3, 2012

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Robert Glaser, Chairperson

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

The claimant filed a petition for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision, which found that the claimant was not eligible for extended benefits based on her residence. In her petition, the claimant argues that she should be eligible for extended benefits because her permanent address is in Kenosha, Wisconsin. She is only temporarily residing in Arizona because her daughter is ill. The claimant argues that she has never worked in Arizona, has always worked in Wisconsin, and continues to pay taxes in Wisconsin. The claimant further argues that the unemployment rate remains high in Arizona, at 8.7 percent. The claimant has only had one interview in Arizona and was not hired for that position. She continues to look for work and has complied with all work search requirements. The commission is not persuaded.

The extended benefits (EB) program is a permanent federal-state program that provides up to 13 weeks of benefits to claimants who have exhausted their regular unemployment insurance benefits during periods of high unemployment and when certain economic conditions are present. Currently, the federal government funds 100 percent of the EB program, except for the portions that would normally be paid by employers who are state and local governments and Indian tribes. Federal law prescribes the economic conditions that determine when an EB period begins and ends. The EB program has strict work search and disqualification requirements for claimants.

The EB program also has restrictions on entitlement. See, 20 CFR § 615.9. For example, an individual in a state which is not in an EB period who files interstate claims for extended benefits may not be paid more than the first two weeks for which he or she files such claims. 20 CFR § 615.9(c).

Although the claimant in this case may have a permanent address in Wisconsin, she has been residing in Arizona for some time. The reason for her relocation is not relevant in determining her eligibility for EB. By virtue of her relocation, the employee has an Arizona labor market. She is looking for work in Arizona, not in Wisconsin. Despite Arizona's relatively high unemployment rate, the state's economic conditions did not meet the requirements for an EB period since June 2011. Consequently, when the claimant exhausted her rights to emergency unemployment compensation in the week ending December 3, 2011, by law she was only entitled to two weeks of extended benefits, which were paid to her in weeks 50 and 51 of 2011.

taylobe . usd : 152 : 2

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

uploaded 2012/09/25