Ohio COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Unemployment Benefits

Keeping you up-to-date regarding changes to Ohio Unemployment Benefits as a result of COVID-19.

IMPORTANT UPDATES: 
Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Pandemic unemployment assistant programs are set to end in Ohio on Sept. 4, 2021. Pending benefit applications and appeals for weeks on or before Sept. 4 will continue to be processed and considered after the expiration of the programs. New PUA and PEUC applications will continue to be accepted through Saturday, Oct. 2, but only for weeks of unemployment prior to Sept. 4. This will need to be done by telephone.

A. Mass Layoff Number: If you are out of work due to COVID-19, you should use Mass Layoff Number #2000180 when applying for benefits. Instructions on how to use the Mass Layoff Number can be found here and an ODJFS application guide can be found here.

A. Mass Layoff Number: If you are out of work due to COVID-19, you should use Mass Layoff Number #2000180 when applying for benefits. Instructions on how to use the Mass Layoff Number can be found here and an ODJFS application guide can be found here.

B. Viewing Correspondence and Determinations:  Ohio's online unemployment system continues to have problems due to the high number of new claims. People are receiving notices they they are not able to open until about seven days later. Some of these notices, such as Notices of Required Action, expire before they can ever be opened.

Determination Letters will not expire and provide for 21 days to appeal. Determinations explain whether a person is approved or denied and give reasons why. It is frustrating to see that a Determination was issued denying benefits and to be unable to open the Determination Letter to see why; however, it is best to wait until the Determination Letter can be viewed before appealing so the full reasons for the Determination can be evaluated and responded to. Deadlines should never be missed, but there should be ample opportunity to appeal after the Determination Letter can be viewed. Ohio has provided this FAQ that discusses this an other COVID-19 unemployment issues.

C. Ohio Executive Order Expanding Unemployment Benefits: The Ohio Governor issued an executive order making it easier for people affected by coronavirus to obtain unemployment benefits and there may be further changes to come. Updates regarding these changes can be found here: http://jfs.ohio.gov/ouio/CoronavirusAndUI.stm Here is what the Executive Order says for claimants:

  • Unemployed workers will include individuals requested by a medical professional, local health authority, or employer to be isolated or quarantined as a consequence of COVID-19 even if not actually diagnosed with COVID-19; and
  • Individuals totally or partially unemployed, or who are participating in the SharedWork Ohio Program will not be required to serve a waiting period before receiving unemployment insurance or SharedWork benefits; and
  • Waiver of work search requirements shall include those individuals requested by a medical professional, local health authority or employer to be isolated or quarantined as a consequence of COVID-19 even if not actually diagnosed with COV-19

D. Should you apply through the regular unemployment system or the PUA system?: This can be one of the most confusing questions. The PUA system is primarily for those people who did not meet the monetary requirements for regular unemployment (e.g., self employed, independent contractors, part-time workers), though it is also for people who meet one of the reasons for expanded benefits described below. The regular unemployment system is primarily for those who do meet the monetary requirements and are unemployed through no fault of their own (e.g., laid off, fired, resigned with just cause).

Many times people should qualify through the PUA system; however, because the system shows they might be monetarily eligible for regular unemployment it will kick them out of the system without providing any appeal rights as the law requires it to do. Such people may need to apply through the regular system first, receive a denial, and have the appeal deadlines expire before they can go back to the PUA system to apply.

Here is an info-graphic from ODJFS directing people to which system they should apply through.

E. Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA): The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act expanded unemployment benefits. Claimants can now apply for PUA benefits here. A step-by-step guide for apply for PUA benefits can be found here. Here is a link that describes some of the PUA benefits and their status. Here is a link to guidance from the Department of Labor. Hear is a link with DOL guidance regarding the Continued Assistance Act. Here is a link from ODJFS regarding the Continued Assistance Act. Here is a a link from ODJFS regarding the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The changes include:

  • American Rescue Plan Act of 2021: This act has extended benefits through September 4, 2021, including extending additional weeks of traditional unemployment extensions from 24 weeks to up to 53 weeks and additional weeks of PUA from 50 weeks to up to 79 weeks. Additionally, beginning for tax year 2020, individuals who legitimately received unemployment benefits will not be taxed federally for the first $10,200 in benefits.
  • Backdating: While claimants have been able to backdate their PUA claims, the Continued Assistance Act provides that first applications for PUA that are filed after December 27, 2020 may not be backdated earlier than December 1, 2020.

    However, people who originally filed a regular UC claim and were denied may backdate their PUA claim to when they originally applied for regular unemployment. DOL Program Letter 16-20 Change 4 explains: "If an individual filed a regular UC claim on or before December 27, 2020, and the state later determines that the individual is not eligible for regular UC, the state should use the date the claimant filed the regular UC claim as the date of filing for the PUA claim, so long as the individual met the requirements for PUA as of that date. For example, if the individual filed a regular UC application on October 4, 2020 and the state determined the claimant was not eligible for regular UC on January 15, 2021, the PUA application will be deemed to have been filed on October 4, 2020 and the PUA claim will be backdated to that date."
  • Expanding benefits to include part-time employees, freelancers, independent contractors, gig workers, the self-employed, and others who also do not otherwise qualify for regular unemployment benefits AND fit into one of the following categories:
  • The individual has been diagnosed with COVID-19 or is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is seeking a medical diagnosis.
    Example (1): An individual who has to quit his or her job as a direct result of COVID-19 because the individual has tested positive for the coronavirus or has been diagnosed with COVID-19 by a qualified medical professional, and continuing work activities, such as through telework, is not possible by virtue of such diagnosis or condition;
    Example (2): An individual who has to quit his or her job due to coming in direct contact with someone who has tested positive for the coronavirus or has been diagnosed by a medical professional as having COVID-19, and, on the advice of a qualified medical health professional is required to resign from his or her position in order to quarantine.
  • A member of the individual’s household has been diagnosed with COVID-19.
    - Example: 
    A member of the individual’s household has been diagnosed as having COVID-19 by a qualified medical professional or a member of the individual’s household has tested positive for COVID-19 and the individual is unable to work as a result.
  • The individual is providing care for a family member or a member of the individual’s household who has been diagnosed with COVID-19.
    - Example:
    An individual is “providing care” for a family member or a member of the individual’s household if the provision of care requires such ongoing and constant attention that the individual’s ability to perform other work functions is severely limited. An individual who is assisting a family member who is able to adequately care for him or herself is not “providing care” under this category.
  • A child or other person in the household for which the individual has primary caregiving responsibility is unable to attend school or another facility that is closed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency and such school or facility care is required for the individual to work.
    - Example (1):  An individual has “primary caregiving responsibility” for a child or other person in the household if he or she is required to remain at home to care for the child or other person.
    - Example (2):  This includes an individual whose job allows for telework, but for whom the provision of care to the child or other person with a closed school or other facility requires such ongoing and constant attention that it is not possible for the individual to perform work at home.
    - Program Letter 16-20 Change 3 explains:  "When the school system provides the individual with a choice between full-time in-person instruction and remote learning, it is open for students to be physically present at the school. If the individual who is the primary caregiver chooses to have the student(s) participate in remote learning instead of in-person instruction, the individual does not meet the provisions of [this] item."
  • The individual is unable to reach the place of employment because of a quarantine imposed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
    - Example (1):  An individual who is unable to reach his or her place of employment because doing so would require the violation of a state or municipal order restricting travel that was instituted to combat the spread of COVID-19.
    - Example (2): An individual may also qualify if he or she is unable to reach the place of employment due to a stay-at-home, shelter-in-place, or other order that requires an individual to stay home in quarantine to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
  • The individual is unable to reach the place of employment because the individual has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.
    - Example (1): An individual who has been advised by a qualified medical professional that he or she may be infected with the coronavirus and that he or she therefore should self-quarantine. For example, an individual had direct contact with another person who has tested positive for the coronavirus or been diagnosed with COVID-19 by a qualified medical professional, and is advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine to prevent further possible spread of the virus. Such circumstances would render the individual unable to reach his or her place of employment.
    - Example (2) (DOL PROGRAM LETTER NO. 16-20 Change 4): An individual whose immune system is compromised by virtue of a serious health condition and is therefore advised by a health care provider to self quarantine in order to avoid the greater-than-average health risks that the individual might face if he or she were to become infected by the coronavirus.
  • The individual was scheduled to commence employment and does not have a job or is unable to reach the job as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
    - Example (1):
    An individual is unable to reach his or her job because doing so would require the violation of a state or municipal order restricting travel that was instituted to combat the spread of the coronavirus or the employer has closed the place of employment.
    - Example (2): An individual does not have a job because the employer with whom the individual was scheduled to commence employment has rescinded the job offer as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
  • The individual has become the breadwinner or major support for a household because the head of the household has died as a direct result of COVID-19.
    - Example:  An individual whose head of household previously contributed the majority of financial support to the household died as a direct result of COVID-19, and the individual is now the person in the household expected to provide such financial support.
  • The individual has to quit his or her job as a direct result of COVID-19.
    - Example (Program Letter 16-20 Change 4):  An individual was diagnosed with COVID-19 by a qualified medical professional, and although the individual no longer has COVID-19, the illness caused health complications that render the individual objectively unable to perform his or her essential job functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation. States should also note that, for purposes of [this] item . . ., an individual does not have to quit his or her job as a direct result of COVID-19 if paid sick leave or other paid leave benefits are available to the individual. Generally, an employee “has to quit” within the meaning of this Section only when ceasing employment is an involuntary decision compelled by the circumstances identified in this Section.
  • The individual’s place of employment is closed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
    - Example (1) (
    Program Letter 16-20 Change 4): If a business is shut down due to an emergency declaration or due to necessary social distancing protocols, the resulting unemployment of affected individuals would be considered a direct result of COVID-19. While a government-mandated closure is not necessary to satisfy this category, the claimant must be able to self-certify that the business was closed “as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.”
    - Example (2) (Program Letter 16-20 Change 4): If a business has multiple parts and one or some of those parts is shut down due to restrictions imposed by COVID-19, affected staff from the parts of the business that shut down may be eligible for PUA. For example, a business may include both a restaurant and a brewery. If the individual’s place of employment is the restaurant and the restaurant is shut down because of the COVID-19 pandemic, even if the brewery continues to operate, the individual who was employed in the restaurant may be eligible for PUA. An individual who is working reduced hours while his or her place of employment continues to operate does not satisfy the conditions to self-certify under [this] item.

  • The individual meets any additional criteria established by the Secretary for unemployment assistance under this section
1. Self-employed individuals (including independent contractors and gig workers) who experienced a significant diminution of their customary or usual services because of the COVID-19 public health emergency (Program Letter 16-20 Change 4):”
- Example (1): (DOL PROGRAM LETTER NO. 16-20) The Secretary has determined that, in addition to individuals who qualify for benefits under the other criteria described above, an individual who works as an independent contractor with reportable income may also qualify for PUA benefits if he or she is unemployed, partially employed, or unable or unavailable to work because the COVID-19 public health emergency has severely limited his or her ability to continue performing his or her customary work activities, and has thereby forced the individual to suspend such activities. For example, a driver for a ridesharing service who receives an IRS Form 1099 from the ride sharing service may not be eligible for PUA benefits under the other criteria outlined above, because such an individual does not have a “place of employment,” and thus cannot claim that he or she is unable to work because his or her place of employment has closed. However, under the additional eligibility criterion established by the Secretary here, the driver may still qualify for PUA benefits if he or she has been forced to suspend operations as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, such as if an emergency state or municipal order restricting movement makes continued operations unsustainable.
- Example (2): (DOL PROGRAM LETTER NO. 16-20 - Change 1) An independent contractor may be eligible for PUA if he or she is unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work because of one of the COVID-19 related reasons listed in section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act. This includes an independent contractor who experiences a significant diminution of work as a result of COVID-19.
2. Individuals who refuse to return to work that is unsafe or accept an offer of new work that is unsafe. (DOL Program Letter No. 16-20 - Change 5).
“The individual has been denied continued unemployment benefits because the individual refused to return to work or accept an offer of work at a worksite that, in either instance, is not in compliance with local, state, or national health and safety standards directly related to COVID-19. This includes, but is not limited to, those related to facial mask wearing, physical distancing measures, or the provision of personal protective equipment consistent with public health guidelines.”

This new COVID-19 related reason applies only to individuals who had already been receiving unemployment benefits but were determined to be ineligible or disqualified under state law because they refused an offer of work at a worksite that was not in compliance with local, state, or national health and safety standards directly related to COVID-19.
3. Certain individuals providing services to educational institutions or educational service agencies. (DOL Program Letter No. 16-20 - Change 5).
“An individual provides services to an educational institution or educational service agency and the individual is unemployed or partially unemployed because of volatility in the work schedule that is directly caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency. This includes, but is not limited to, changes in schedules and partial closures.”
- Example (1): Individual does not have a contract or reasonable assurance. An individual who: (1) has provided services to an educational institution or educational service agency; (2) lacks a contract or reasonable assurance and, as a result, is not subject to the “between and within terms” denial provisions; and (3) is not otherwise eligible for regular UC (or PEUC or EB) may self-certify eligibility for PUA under this new COVID-19 related reason if they are subject to significant volatility in the school schedule.
- Example (2): Individual has a contract or reasonable assurance. An individual is generally not eligible for PUA if they: (1) have provided services to an educational institution or educational service agency; and (2) are filing for a week that is between or within terms and they have a contract or reasonable assurance to return in the subsequent year or term, and, as a result, they are denied regular UC (or PEUC or EB). However, the individual may be eligible for PUA if they have other non-educational employment from which they are able to self-certify that they are unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work for a different COVID-19 related reason.
4. Individuals experiencing a reduction of hours or a temporary or permanent lay-off. DOL Program Letter No. 16-20 - Change 5).
“An individual is an employee and their hours have been reduced or the individual was laid off as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.”

Under this new COVID-19 related reason, if an individual is laid off because the place of employment is partially closed (either permanently or temporarily) or the individual has experienced a reduction in hours, the individual may now self-certify eligibility.

F. FPUC: Up to an additional $600 per week in benefits, which will be applied retroactively to March 29, 2020 and last through July 25, 2020. If you are receiving unemployment, you do not need need to apply separately for PUA benefits to receive this additional $600.00.

G. FPUC Extension: Up to an additional $300 per week in benefits. The Continued Assistance Act, enacted on December 27, 2020, provides an additional $300 per week in benefits beginning December 26, 2020 and ending on or before March 14, 2020. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 extended these benefits until September 4, 2021. In May 2021, Governor Dewine decided to opt out of the additional $400 effective June 26, 2021.

H. MUEC: Up to an additional $100 per week in benefits for certain mixed earners: These are people who received both income as employees and self-employment income. They may qualify for this additional benefit if they i) have received at least $5,000 of self-employment income in the most recent taxable year prior to the individual’s application for regular UC, ii) are receiving a UI benefit (other than PUA) for which FPUC is payable, and iii) submit documentation substantiating their self-employment income. This additional payment does not apply to individuals collecting PUA.

I. PEUC - Extension of Unemployment Benefits: The CARES Act initially provided an additional 13 weeks of extended PEUC benefits. The Continued Assistance Act increased the 13 weeks to 24 weeks. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 then increased the 24 weeks to 53 weeks.

J. Contacting Unemployment:  Ohio Unemployment continues to be difficult, or near impossible, to reach by telephone.

For the regular unemployment system, this link provides telephone numbers to the various processing centers, which may or may not be easier to get through to than the general number. The fax number is 614-466-7449, but be sure to save a fax confirmation whenever sending anything by fax. They can also be emailed at JFS.UI_Respond@jfs.ohio.gov, though we hear they have not been responding to emails.

For the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance system, the call center number is (833) 604-0774 and the email is Progressive-PUA@jfs.ohio.gov

K. COVID-19 Weekly Claims: This is a guide to filing COVID-19 related weekly claims: https://bit.ly/2QXeRMV

L. COVID-19 Stimulus Checks: These do NOT need to be reported as earnings when filing weekly claims.

M. PUA Overpayments: Nearly one in five people who applied for PUA benefits have received notices that they were overpaid. ODJFS claims that it used reported income without verifying to get payments out quickly, but are now verifying income and adjusting payments. As a result, in the midst of the pandemic many people are seeing their benefits stopped and receiving notices that they need to pay back thousands of dollars. An appeal can be filed for these overpayment notices, though it should focus on the benefit amount that was determined (i.e., is the new benefit amount correct, did it consider all income?) rather than arguing that the overpayment should be waived because it is ODJFS's error.

The Continued Assistance Act passed in December 2020 authorizes states to waive the repayment if the state determines that the payment of PUA was without fault on the part of any such individual and such repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. Factors that a state may consider include whether "(a) It would cause financial hardship to the person from whom it is sought; (b) The recipient of the overpayment can show (regardless of his or her financial circumstances) that due to the notice that such payment would be made or because of the incorrect payment either he/she has relinquished a valuable right or changed positions for the worse; or (c) Recovery could be unconscionable under the circumstances." The waiver provision is permissive. Therefore the state may choose not to waive the PUA overpayment. At this time, it is unclear whether Ohio will allow waivers.

Many individuals who have overpayments have received the attached notice with instructions on how to request a waiver. If the payment is through no fault of the claimant (e.g., PUA had all of the records to make the correct determination) and it would create a financial hardship to have to pay back the overpayment (e.g., limited income, removes benefits at a time when most needed, places a great deal of debt upon the claimant), it may be helpful to point out these issues.

N. When Your Employer Asks You to Return to Work But it is Not Safe or You Are at High Risk: On June 16, 2020, Governor Dewine signed Executive Order 2020-24D, which makes it easier for people to turn down offers to return to work due to being at high risk, and yet still collect unemployment. Here is the pertinent text of that order:

When an employee is called back to work in the same position as prior to the Director of Health's special orders, there is a presumption that the position is considered "suitable work" under the Ohio Unemployment Insurance program. Individuals who refuse to return to work without good cause in order to obtain additional unemployment benefits may have their eligibility negatively impacted. During the period of the COVID-19 state of emergency, the following constitutes "good cause" for refusing suitable work:
  1. A medical professional' s recommendation that an individual not return to work because he/she falls into a category that is considered "high risk" for contracting COVID-19 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the employer cannot offer teleworking options; or
  2. The employee is sixty-five years of age or older; or
  3. Tangible evidence of a health and safety violation by the employer that does not allow the employee to practice social distancing, hygiene, and wearing protective equipment; or
  4. Potential exposure· to COVID-19 and subject to a prescribed quarantine period by a medical or health professional; or
  5. Staying home to care for a family member who is suffering from COVID-19 or subject to a prescribed quarantine period by a medical or health professional.

CDC information about high risk categories can be found here.

O. Failing to Follow Safety Requirements? It is true that an employee can have just cause to resign if their employer failed  to  provide  proper safety  measures  required by law. You can find Ohio's COVID-19 related requirements for employers who are reopening here. #3 of Executive Order 2020-24D may also be helpful, as it allows a person to turn down a job there is, "Tangible evidence of a health and safety violation by the employer that does not allow the employee to practice social distancing, hygiene, and wearing protective equipment." DOL Program Letter No. 16-20 - Change also lets people resign and recieve PUA benefits if their employer is not following required safety protocols.

If an employee has safety concerns, they should communicate those concerns to their employer, describe how the employer is not complying with safety measures required by law, take the concerns up the chain of command if a resolution is not obtained, and give the employer an adequate opportunity to resolve the issues. Whenever possible, these communications should be done in writing and saved to be able to show Unemployment.That writing can be emails, letters or even text messages with screenshots of the messages saved. It may also help to also report the concerns to the local health department.

P. Tip for Dealing With PUA Denials. Many people receive multiple notices that deny them, seem to approve them, and place their benefits on hold as an issue is being resolved. They might receive a non-monetary determination that denies them and then a monetary determination that seems to approve them, even though the non-monetary determination will prevent payments until it is appealed and resolved. To develop a strategy, it is important to isolate each issue and to focus on the reason each determination is denying benefits. Each denial will have its own appeal track, so each reason needs evaluated and each denial needs appealed. Our first question when evaluating a case is, what reason does the Determination Notice state that you are denied and owe an overpayment?

Q. Do You Need an Attorney? We provide free telephone consultations to review this very question. Most times we are able to help and answer questions without the need of hiring an attorney. It is very important to contact an attorney when a case involves appeals. The first appeal step is done in writing and important for getting benefits started quickly. We cannot help with that first appeal step if we are contacted after it has already been filed, so contact us before you file the appeal. The second appeal step involves a telephone hearing is is usually both the best and last real opportunity to obtain a win. There is very little you or an attorney can do after the hearing, so be sure to contact an attorney before the hearing. We will talk about your case, offer free guidance, and if appropriate talk about legal representation with a contingency fee where we get paid only when we obtain a win for you.

Improve Your Chance to Obtain Benefits

The unemployment benefit appeal process does provide opportunities to obtain a determination in your favor, but you must have knowledge of the laws, the rules, and have the required tools to obtain and present evidence on your behalf.

The fact is, ODJFS does not operate based on what you know to be true, unless that truth can be shown to them, proven to them, and explained in a way that they can understand that Ohio statutes and rules require them to give you benefits.

The Ohio Unemployment Lawyers at Smith's Law Offices have the expertise and experience to navigate through the Unemployment Appeal process and to present the best case possible to obtain the benefits you deserve.   It is a simple decision: If you want to increase your chances of obtaining benefits, take advantage of a free consultation with the Ohio Unemployment Lawyers at Smith's Law Offices.

Free Consultations

You have nothing to risk or lose by calling Smith's Law Offices for your free consultation, so call us today before any of your unemployment appeal rights are lost. Whether you just received an unemployment denial and need to appeal or are about to have an unemployment hearing, we can help.

Affordable Legal Help

We offer fee options that understand the cost of  legal help can be difficult when you are unemployed. In many PUA cases, we offer a minimal flat fee for representation through the PUA system and the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission.

Statewide Representation

Because unemployment determinations are appealed in writing, and the hearings are conducted by telephone, Smith's Law Offices successfully represents clients throughout the entire State of Ohio.

Sample Employers We Have Prevailed Against

1-800-Flowers
22650 Vess LLC
Aaron's, Inc.
Ace Cash Express, Inc.
ACOSTA REMAINCO, INC.
Adecco USA, Inc.
Ads Alliance Data Systems, Inc.
Advanced Industrial Services, LLC
Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC
Ag Bells LLC
AIY Properties, Inc.
Akron City Board of Education
Akron General Partners, Inc.
All-Ohio Threaded Rod Co., Inc.
Allen Refrigeration Services, Inc.
Allstate of Youngstown LLC
Altaquip LLC
Amazon.com Services, Inc.
American Bottling Company Inc.
American Home Patient Inc.
Americare Home Health of Bryan LLC
Ampro Computers Inc.
Amtrust North America, Inc.
Animal Hospital of Polaris, LLC
Anthem Companies, Inc.
Archbold Family Dental
Ariel Corporation
The Arms Trucking Co., Inc.
Ashland City Board of Education
Ashtabula County
Ashtabula County Medical Center
AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
Atlantis Company, Inc.
Aventiv Research, Inc.
Bar One II LLC
Barbara A. Hanson D.D.S. LLC
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
Bef Foods Inc.
Berke Dental Center
Best Equipment Company Inc
Biomat USA, Inc.
BJ's Restaurant Operations Company
Blanchard Valley Regional Health Center
The Blue Berry Cafe, Inc.
Bluffton Hotel Corp.
Bm2Freight
Bob Belsterling et Al
Bolton Square Hotel Company, Inc.
Borcherding Parts, Inc.
BPI Recycling, LLC
Brookville Local Board of Education
Buckeye Cablevision, Inc.
C & R Welding Inc.
C T L Aerospace, Inc.
Cantex Inc.Cargill, Inc.
Carrols, LLC
The Carter Jones Lumber Company Inc.
Catastrophe Management Solutions
Catholic Charities Corporation
Catholic Health Care Partners
Cbocs, Inc.
Certified Flooring Installation, Inc.
Cheeseman, LLC
Chi Omega Sorority
Children's Hospital Medical Center
Chippewa Community School, LLC
Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company LLC
Citizens Bank, National Association
City of Delaware
City of Mason
City of Middletown
Clerac LLC
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Cleveland Die & Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Cleveland Wholesale Baking Company Inc.
Coblentz Distributing, Inc.
Cobra Plastics, Inc.
Community Health Partners Regional Medical Center, Inc.
Component Repair Technologies, Inc.
Computer Discount, Inc.
Contactus, LLC
Containerport Group, Inc.
Continental Real Estate Companies, Inc.
Continuum Care Hospice, LLC
Core Manufacturing LLC
Coronado Steel Co.
Cortland Savings Banking Co.
Costco Wholesale Corporation
Coulter Ventures, LLC
Creative Fabrication Ltd.
Crescent Metal Products Inc.
Crossmark, Inc.
Crown Services
Custom Deco, LLC
Cuyahoga County Commissioners
D and M Staff, LLCD-Flawless Inc
Daniel R. Whittaker Dmd Inc.
Danop, Ltd.Dave Hart
Denham Oilfield Service, Inc.
DenOneLLC
Department of Public Safety, Ohio Highway Patrol
Detroit Shoreway Community Development
Dialamerica Marketing, Inc.
Dillard Tennessee, Ltd.
Djaro Inc.
Do It Best Corp Nelson Rd.
Domestic Linen Supply & Laundry Co.
Dometic Corporation
Donor Care Center, Inc
Drivetime Car Sales Company, LLC
DSW, Inc.
Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc.
Easter Seals Tristate
The Employer Group, Inc. (PEO)
Encore Rehabilitation Services, LLC
Erie County General Health District
Euclid City Board of Education
Exclusively Floors, LLC
Executive Care, Ltd.Exel, Inc.
Eyetique of Cleveland, Inc.
F&W Properties, Inc.
Falls Village Retirement Community ltd
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Inc.
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
FIA Card Services, N.A.
Fifth Third Bank
Four Square Aggregates Ltd.
Fresh Thyme Farmers Market, LLC
Fusion, Inc.
Geauga County Auditor
Gemma Power Systems, LLC
General Data Co., Inc.
General Die Casters, Inc.
General Mills Operations LLC
Germain Inc.
Giesecke & Devrient America Inc.
GLJMOW, LLC
Good Samaritan Hospital & Health Center, Inc.
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA)
Green Gourmet Foods, LLC
Green Impressions, LLC
Greenstar LLC
Group Management Services, Inc.
Guardsmark LLC
Hahn Loeser & Parks Llp
Hahn Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Hamilton County Auditor
Hamilton County Park District
Hardee's
HCF of Court House, Inc.
Henkel Corporation
Hickey Metal Fabrication & Roofing, Inc.
Hickman & Lowder, Co., LP.A.
Higbee West Main, Ltd.
Home Depot USA, Inc.
Hopedale Mining, LLC
Horton Emergency Vehicles Company Inc.
Hose Master LLC
Hospice of Northwest Ohio
Humphrey Line
Hydrosol Systems, Inc.
Imagine Schools, Inc.
Innovative Fabrication, LLC
Inspiron Logistics, LLC
Integrated Logistics Solutions LLC
Interstate Management Company, LLC
ISD Renal Inc.
J J Delong Associates, Inc.
J. C. Ehrlich Co., Inc.
Jacobson Mfg. LLC
Jant Corp.
Jay Auto Group Services, LLC
Jay Industries, Inc.
Jegs Automotive Inc.
JLG Enterprises Inc.
JMS Furniture Ohio, Inc.
JohnDow Industries Inc.
Joseph T of D Co., (Inc.)
JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association
K&K Home Division, Ltd.
Kapolis Corp.
Keltec Inc.
La Rosa's Inc.
Lake PHO, Inc.
Lakes Venture, LLC
Lakeside April LLC
Lakewood Senior Campus, Inc.
Lambda Research, Inc.
The Landing At Canton LLC
Landpro Equipment LLC
Lane Construction Corporation
The Laurels of West Carollton, LLC
Lewis Imports LLC
Life Safety Enterprises, Inc.
Lincoln Heights Health Center
Lorain County
Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.
M. Argueso & Co., Inc.
M V M Inc.
Mahle Behr Dayton LLC
Mahoning Valley Infusion Care Inc.
Mary Rutan Health Association Logan County
Marymount Hospital, Inc.
Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.
Mayfield Lighting, Inc.
McDonald Steel Corporation
McKesson Medical Surgical Inc.
Meijer Group, Inc.
Menard, Inc.
Mercy Health Partners-Western Ohio, Inc.
Mercy Medical Center, Inc.
Mergers Marketing, Inc.
Meridian Industries, Inc.
Metro Cleveland Security Inc.
Miami Valley Gaming & Racing
Mill & Motion, Inc.
Mobis North America, LLC
Moran Foods LLC
Motivepower Inc.
Mount Carmel Health System, Inc.
National Lime & Stone Co., Inc.
Norwood City Board of Education
OCCHealth Concepts, Inc.
Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks
Ohio Department of Taxation
OPRS Communities, Inc.
Optima Holdings, LLC
Orak Enterprises, LLC
Oriana House, Inc.
The Orlando Baking Co.
Orthopaedic Associates of Zanesville, Inc.
Orthotic & Prosthetic Services Inc.
Our Lady of The Wayside, Inc.
Paradise Hospitality Inc.
Parker Hannifin Corporation
Parma Community General Hospital Association
Patric O Brien Jr. Chevrolet III Inc.
PCC Airfoils, Inc.
Peoples Bank NA, Inc.
Personnel Outsource Solutions, Inc.
Petsmart, Inc.PJ Pizza Ohio, LLC
Pike County Recoveiy Council, Inc.
Plantation Animal Hospital
Pnc Bank Na
Portrait Innovations, Inc.
PPC Airfoils, Inc.
Pratt Lewisburgh Corrugating, LLC
Precision Thermoplastic Components, Inc.
Premier Bank, Inc.
Premier Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
Premier Real Estate Management LLC
Print Direct For Less 2 Inc.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.
Pro-Tech Maintenance, LLC
Provider Services Holdings LLC
Purfoods LLCQHG of Massillon, Inc.
Quality Support, Inc.
Quintiles Commercial Us, Inc.
Radiant Technology Group, Inc.
Rail Link Inc
Rail Loading Services, LLC
R.C. Bremer Marketing Associates, Inc.
The Rdi Corporation
Reactive Resin Products Co.
Reliable Castings Corporation
Reuther Mold & Mfg. Co. Inc.
Revere Plastics Systems LLC
The Reynolds and Reynolds Co., Inc.
Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc.
Riverside Community Urban Development Corp.
Robert J. Dittoe O.D., Inc.
Robinson Memorial Hospital
Ron Carrocce Trucking Co., Inc.
Rona Homes LLC
Ross Aluminum Castings LLC
Ruan Logistics Corporation
Rx Options, Inc.
Sage Client 468, LLC
Sammy's Staffing Services Inc.
Saturn of Dayton, Inc.
Select Employment Services Inc.
Seneca County Sheriff's Department
Serene Health Services of KY LLC
Shaker Heights City Board of Education
Shearer's Foods, Inc
Sheltering Arms Hospital Foundation, Inc.
Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Retirement Service
Sherwin-Williams Co., Inc.
Sis-Bro, Inc.
SMI Crankshaft, LLC
Southwest General Health Center
Specialty Retailers, Inc.
Speedway, LLC
Spherion of Lima, Inc.
Spine Institute of Ohio LLC
Springbrook Express, LLC
St. Luke' s Hospital, Inc.
Stanley Steemer International, Inc.
Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc.
ST3J Autism
Stark County Commissioners' Office
Steinhaus Restaurant
Steps Behavioral Consulting LLC
Stingray Logistics LLC
Stone Products Inc.
Stoneridge, Inc.
Summa Health
Summa Western Reserve Hospital LLC
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Sunstates Maintenance Corporation
Super C Group LLC
Superior Metal Products, Inc.
Surgeforce, LLC
Swagelok Manufacturing Company
Sysco Cincinnati, LLC
Sysco Cleveland, Inc.
TA Operating LLC
Teays Valley Local Board of Education
The Tamarkin Company, Inc.
Thistledown Management LLC
Tiks Thai Express, Inc.
The Tile Shop LLC
Time Warner Cable
Timekeeping Systems, Inc.
Tom's King Ohio, LLC
Total Quality Logistics LLC
Transglobal, Inc
Tri-County Hematology & Oncology Associates, Inc.
TriHealth G, LLC
Trubridge Inc.
TWC (Time Warner Cable) Administration, LLC
UC Health LLC
UH Regional Hospitals
Umicore Specialty Materials Recycling, LLC
United Energy Healthcare Workers Corp
United Healthcare Services, Inc.
U.S. Postal Service
Unity Trucking LLC
University of Cincinnati Physicians Company, LLC
Unlimited Advacare, Inc.
Upright Steel Fabricators & Erectors, LLC
US Well Services LLC
VYA, INC
Ventra Sandusky LLC
Village of Byesville
Wenger Traffic Corporation
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
Walton Healthcare Group, LLC
Western Reserve Historical Society, Inc.
Whemco Ohio Foundry Division, Inc.
WJW Television, LLC
The Works: Ohio Center for History Art & Technology, Inc.
Worthington Services, LLC
Wurth Electronics ICS, Inc.

Recent Cases/News

PUA Fraud Appeal Won:
Like many people who received Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA); our client found his benefits denied with a fraud determination. The PUA wanted all of his benefits back along with penalties. We investigated, collected documentation and appealed for him. As a result, the determinations were reversed and nullified. In the end, the fraud determination was eliminated and he did not owe any overpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 30, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won for School Employee:
Our client worked as a school employee, contracted to provider dance lessons. At the end of her contract and employment, she filed for benefits. The school objected, claiming she had a reasonable assurance of employment in fall and was therefore not eligible for benefits. We showed the hearing officer that this was not the case and, as a result, obtained a win for our client.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 24, 2022
Unemployment Won After Employee Terminated for Giving the Finger:
Our client worked at a bank where, due to an issue with the vault, she was forced with no notice to stay after work until security arrived. After two-and-a-half hours with no one from security arriving, she allegedly made a gesture to a security camera facing her. She then found herself terminated. The hearing officer agreed that, even if inappropriate, the gesture in those circumstances did not warrant discharge without any prior warnings. As a result, her unemployment benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 22, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won for Student:
To qualify for weekly unemployment benefits, a person must be available for work. If the start to attend school after separating from their job, ODJFS will determine that they are no longer available for work due to school. Our client, however, attended school while he was working at base period employers. As a result, we showed the hearing officer that for this reason he should continue to be considered available. The hearing officer agreed and we won the hearing.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 16, 2022
PUA Fraud Appeal Won:
After receiving her pandemic unemployment benefits, our client found the PUA system claiming show owed all of her benefits back along with a fraud penalty. We appealed these determinations and quickly obtained decision in her favor - eliminating the overpayment and fraud determinations.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 15, 2022
Unemployment Won - Identity Issue Resolved:
Like many people, our client found his unemployment benefits denied due to a claim that he did not provide sufficient identity information. We represented him through a telephone hearing and won his unemployment benefits for him.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 14, 2022
Unemployment Won for Employee Medically Unable to Work:
Our client was terminated when he was unable to work due to a medical issue. He found his unemployment benefits in jeopardy for being terminated with just cause and being unable to work. We showed that a termination due to being unable to work due to a bona fide medical issue is a termination without just cause. We further showed that our client received a release to work, though with restrictions, some weeks after. Therefore, he won his hearing by showing the termination was without just cause and that he was able to work.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 14, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - No Just Cause to Terminate:
Our client found her employer challenging her unemployment benefits. They claimed that they terminated her with just cause for failing to follow policies, failing to properly supervise subordinates, and failing to cooperate with an investigation. We showed the hearing officer that the employer lacked proof of every allegation it made and, as a result, the hearing officer concluded there was no just cause for termination. Our client's benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 10, 2022
Unemployment Won for Head Start Employee:
As a general rule, education employees do not receive unemployment compensation through the summer months if they have a reasonable assurance of employment in fall, though they may qualify if they have sufficient non-school employment. Our client worked at a head start program and found herself denied benefits because there was a claim that she had a reasonable assurance. However, we showed the hearing officer that head start programs are considered education employment only when the program is operated by a local board of education and staffed by employees of the board of education. Our client's head start program was operated by a non-profit organization, and as a result we obtained a decision approving her benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 9, 2022
PUA Fraud Appeal Won:
Our client, like many, received a fraud determination from the Ohio PUA system demanding repayment of all benefits and assessing penalties. Through timely filing an appeal with required documentation, we obtained a decision eliminating the fraud finding, eliminating all penalties, and eliminating all overpayment demands.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 7, 2022
PUA Unemployment Benefits Won:
After receiving her pandemic unemployment benefits, our client found herself denied with the PUA claiming that she was overpaid because she did not provide proof of employment or self-employment, or the planned commencement of employment. We helped our client to prepare for the hearing, submitting additional documentation, and we convinced the hearing officer that she had provided the needed documentation. As a result, she won the hearing, was approved for benefits, and had the overpayment eliminated.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 6, 2022
Terminated Claimant Wins Unemployment:
After being approved for a temporary leave, our client returned to find her items had been boxed and a new employee in her position. She contacted HR who told her that she could apply for other positions. When she then applied for unemployment benefits, she found herself denied with the employer claiming she resigned. We showed ODJFS the facts and the law and, as a result, an appeal was granted in her favor approving benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
May 31, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won for Pregnant Claimaint:
Our client received unemployment benefits only to find months later that ODJFS claimed show owed back months of her benefits due to being unable/unavailable for work. We researched the issue and found that ODJFS based this upon our client having given birth during her claims. However, she was only unable to work for two weeks after, which we confirmed with her medical provider. Through a hearing, we obtained a win - with the hearing officer concluding that she was only unable to work during two weeks and waiving any overpayment for those two weeks.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
May 23, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - Medical Restrictions:
When a person is separated from a job because they have a bona fide medical condition that prevents them from working that job, it is a qualifying separation. However, to qualify for benefits every week, a person must be able to perform work. Our client was denied benefits because ODJFS determined that she was not able to work. We showed that, while she was not able to work the job she was separated from, she was able to work other jobs. As a result, we won her appeal for her.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
May 12, 2022
Unemployment Approved for Employee Terminated for Having a Chair to Sit in:
Our client was terminated because he had a chair to sit in during his breaks and lunches. Through a hearing, we showed that employer lacked any evidence that he was using the chair instead of working, but was rather using the chair only during his breaks. As a result, the Hearing Officer found in his favor.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
May 11, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - No Just Cause for Termination:
Our client found her employer fighting and appealing her unemployment, claiming they had just cause to terminated her for mistakes done at work. We prevailed at a hearing, showing the hearing officer that the mistakes were minor and the employer failed to follow its progressive discipline policy.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
May 9, 2022
PUA (Pandemic Unemployment Assistance) Appeal Won:
PUA benefits were determined based upon 2019 income. Our client was initially approved for $480 per week and then they changed it to $189 and then back to $480 and then back to $189. Through a hearing, we showed that he was actually eligible for $582 per week. As a result, not only was his overpayment eliminated, but the PUA now must issue him a backpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
April 29, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - Employer Failed to Follow Progressive Discipline Policy:
Our client's employer had a progressive discipline policy that it chose to deviate from when terminating her. Through a hearing, we showed the hearing officer this and that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. The hearing officer agreed, granted our appeal, and approved benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
April 27, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won After Resignation:
Our client worked for a company that failed on repeated occassions to pay him properly so he resigned. The company asked to hire him back, explaining that it would be under new ownership. When he returned he found that the company was not under new ownership and it continued to make errors on his paycheck. The Hearing Officer agreed with us, "that a reasonable person under Ohio law would quit when they discovered that the Company had lied about ownership, continued a pattern of inaccurately paying hours worked, and had not paid them holiday pay to which they were entitled." As a result, we won his appeal and he was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
April 11, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - Employee Laid Off from School:
Despite being laid off from his job at a school due to cutback and funding issues, our client found himself denied unemployment benefits. We showed the hearing officer that he was eligible and obtained a decision in his favor.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
April 8, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - Available for Work:
To qualify for unemployment benefits each week claims, a person must meet certain criteria such as being able and available for work. Our client found himself denied for several weeks because ODJFS determined that he was not available for work. Through a hearing, we showed that he was able and available for work. As a result, the overpayment was eliminated and was able to keep his benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
April 5, 2022
Unemployment Hearing Won:
Our client was terminated because the employer, without warning, accused her of using an employee discount code for purchasing items for her fiance. Through a hearing, we showed that (a) the employer provided no prior warnings; (b) its rules were laxly enforced; and (c) it lacked evidence to prove that the items were not for her own use, and therefore legitimate use of her discount code. We won her hearing and her benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
April 1, 2022
PUA Unemployment Appeal Won
After filing for regular unemployment benefits, our client applied for PUA benefits and was approved. Several months later she was denied by a notice stating that she would be in the regular unemployment system. Through a hearing, we showed that she was properly in the PUA system and the overpayment the PUA system was asking for was eliminated as a result.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
March 30, 2022
Unemployment Approved After Termination:
After our client was terminated, he found his employer fighting his unemployment by throwing a laundry list of allegations against him. Through extensive research and representation at his hearing, we fought against every allegation and won his unemployment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
March 22, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won After Termination for Argument:
Our client had an argument with a co-worker, though there was no threatening or harassing behavior. However, he still found himself terminated and subsequently denied unemployment compensation. We showed the hearing officer that the argument did not warrant termination and as a result won his hearing for him.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
March 10, 2022
PUA Unemployment Appeal Won / Employment Verification:
After receiving PUA unemployment benefits for months, our client found the PUA system demanding repayment for failing to provide sufficient employment verification. Through a hearing, we showed that the employment verification was sufficient and the hearing officer agreed, eliminating the overpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
March 3, 2022
PUA Unemployment Won / Conflict of States:
Our client found her PUA unemployment denied because Ohio believed she had made a claim in another state. We showed the hearing officer that the other state's claim was denied, and as a result we obtained a decision approving her for her PUA benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
March 3, 2022
Unemployment Approved After Termination For Telling Supervisor to "Be a man about it."
During a conversation about our client being absent from work due to COVID, the topic turned to discussions about racist comments being made by other employees. The supervisor became irate when our client expressed his concern that management was not taking these comments seriously and then, after our client told his supervisor to, "be a man about it," he found himself fired. Through a hearing we showed the reasons for our client's concerns and that his comment to his supervisor did not warrant termination. The hearing officer agreed, approving his benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
March 2, 2022
Unemployment Benefits Won - Identity Verification:
When our client found her unemployment benefits denied because ODJFS said she did not provide sufficient identity verification, she contacted us for help. We represented her through a hearing and obtained a win for her.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 17, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - ODJFS as Employer:
Our client was hired by ODJFS to work as a customer services representative. After she was terminated, and denied unemployment benefits by ODJFS, we represented her through a hearing and obtained a win for her. We showed the Hearing Officer that she was terminated for not meeting a calls quota, but she was never informed of a calls quota when she was hired. As a result, her benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 16, 2022
Unemployment Hearing Won - Client Available for Work:
Our client worked a full-time and part-time job. After the full-time job ended, he applied for unemployment benefits but found himself denied as being unavailable for work. It seems the part-time employer claimed it had other hours for him to work that he turned down. Through a hearing, we showed that this was not true. As a result, he was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 16, 2022
No Just Cause to Terminate for Absences - Unemployment Approved.
After our client was denied unemployment benefits due to a termination from work, we represented him through a telephone hearing. The hearing officer agreed with us that, "When a claimant is discharged for just cause in violation of an employer's policy the rule must be reasonable, known, and uniformly applied. The violation must also have some connection with work, be substantial and materially affect the employer's interest, and the employee's action indicates negligence or a willful disregard of the rule." We showed that the employer's stated reason for terminating - absenteeism - was not the reason given at termination. Rather, he was told that the company was going in a different direction. The Hearing Officer concluded that the termination was without just cause and approved benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 14, 2022
PUA Appeal Won - Employment Verification Provided:
Like many other people, our client received PUA benefits for months only to find his claim denied, and a demand that he repay benefits, because PUA said he did not provide sufficient employment verification. Through a hearing, we obtained a win in his favor.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 14, 2022
Unemployment Won - No Offer to Return to Work:
Our client found her unemployment benefits denied after the employer claimed she refused an offer to return to work after a layoff. Through a telephone hearing, by cross-examining the employer's witnesses, we showed that the employer lacked evidence that it did make an offer to return to work. As a result, her unemployment benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 8, 2022
Employee Terminated Without Just Cause - Approved for Unemployment:
Our client and several of her co-workers performed their duties as they were trained. The employer then changed a rule, without notice, and terminated several of the employees who violated the rule. The hearing officer agreed that the employer lacked just to terminate because the employees performed their jobs in accord with a long standing past practice and, before the employer could discipline them for not following a rule, it first needed to give them notice of the rule. As a result, our clients benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 7, 2022
PUA Unemployment Appeal Won:
Like many people, our client found himself denied PUA benefits months after receiving them because the PUA system claimed he did not provide sufficient employment verification. We led his appeal and showed the Hearing Officer that his documentation was sufficient, resulting in a win and an elimination of his overpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 4, 2022
Employee Terminated Due to Absences Approved for Unemployment:
After our client was terminated for absences due to a bona fide medical reason, she found herself denied unemployment compensation. Through a hearing, we showed that the vast majority of the absences were due to a bona fide medical reason, and as a result, she was not at fault. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved her benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 2, 2022
Unemployment Approved After Layoff:
Due to restructuring at the employer, our client found her position eliminated. ODJFS denied her benefits; however, because she was offered two alternative positions. We showed the hearing officer that neither alternative position was suitable because one was two-hours away and the other involved a substantial reduction in pay. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed with us that our client was eligible for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
February 2, 2022
Unemployment Won After Termination for "Not Being a Good Fit":
With no prior warnings about any work performance issues, our client found herself terminated for, "not being a good fit." She applied for unemployment and was denied until we represented her through a hearing and obtained a decision in her favor. The Hearing Officer concluded, after giving credibility to our client's testimony, that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. As a result, her benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 31, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won After Resignation:
After being placed on an performance improvement plan, our client was told that he was being terminated unless he resigned instead. He resigned, but found himself denied unemployment benefits due to the resignation. We showed the hearing officer that the resignation was in lieu of an impending termination, and therefore the question for the hearing officer was not whether he had just cause to resign, but rather whether the employer had just cause to terminated. The hearing officer agreed that they did not, and as a result his benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 27, 2022
Pandemic Unemployment Appeal Won:
After receiving benefits for months, the PUA denied our client, claiming he did not provide sufficient employment verification. We represented him through a hearing, prevailed, eliminated his overpayment, and obtained a backpayment for him.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 26, 2022
PUA Benefits Approved:
Our client was denied PUA benefits after the PUA system determined he did not provide sufficient employment verification. Through a hearing, we showed sufficient verification through check stubs, tax returns, W-2s, and other documents. As a result, his benefits were approved and his overpayment was eliminated.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 20, 2022
PUA Benefits Won:
After receiving PUA benefits for months, our client was denied because the PUA system claimed he did not provide sufficient employment verification. We prevailed, showing a hearing officer sufficient employment verification. As a result, his overpayment was eliminated and his benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 19, 2022
Unemployment Benefits Approved for School Employee:
School employees are generally not eligible for unemployment through the summers based on their school employment if they have a reasonable assurance of employment in the fall. Our client's contract came to an end. Though the employer told him he may be able to apply for another position in the Fall, it did not give him a reasonable assurance. Thus, the Hearing Officer agreed to approve his benefits through the summer.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 18, 2022
Unemployment Appeal After Late Filing Appeal and SUB Unemployment:
Our client received what is called SUB unemployment from her employer. A Supplemental Unemployment Benefit ("SUB") is a plan by an employer that subsidizes unemployment benefits. ODJFS incorrectly determined that this was deductible income. Despite attempts by our client to appeal this determination, ODJFS also determined that she appealed late. Through a hearing, we showed that the SUB unemployment benefits were not deductible, and should not have reduced her weekly unemployment benefit. Further, because State of Ohio Amended Substitution House Bill No. 197 (Am Sub. H.B. No. 197) tolled "any other criminal, civil or administrative time limitation under the Revised Code ... set to expire between March 9, 2020, and July 30, 2020," her July 15 appeal of the May determination was still timely. As a result, she was approved for her unemployment compensation.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 12, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - No Just Cause to Terminate:
After being terminated from her job, our client found her employer raising many issues with unemployment to justify the termination even though they never shared those reasons with her. We showed the Hearing Officer that the employer could not bring up reasons that were not given at the time of termination, that our client had no prior discipline, and the employer failed to provide any witnesses with personal knowledge of the allegations. As a result, our client won her appeal and was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 11, 2022
PUA Unemployment Appeal Won:
After paying benefits to our client for months, the PUA issued a determination notice denying her benefits and demanding she pay back the benefits she already received. We represented her through a telephone hearing, obtaining and analyzing her file, verifying documentation was included, and presented legal arguments to the Hearing Officer that the PUA was wrong to deny her. The Hearing Officer agreed, reversing the denial of benefits and eliminating the overpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 10, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won for Student:
As a general rule, if claimant enrolls in school after becoming unemployed, they will be denied benefits for being "unavailable" for work. However, if the claimant was attending school while they were working, the schooling should not disqualify them from benefits. Our client, however, found ODJFS asking for a large overpayment after determining he was unavailable due to attending school. During a hearing, we showed the Hearing Officer that he attended school while he was working, and as a result the Hearing Officer agreed that he was eligible for benefits and eliminated the overpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 5, 2022
PUA Benefits Won - No Statutory Authority for Imposing Suspension of Benefits for Failing to Respond to Department Inquiry:
Our client received PUA benefits for several months when she received determination notices that (a) denied her benefits for failing to respond to an department inquiry, and (b) deducted from the benefits she received a pension benefit from an employer she worked at several years earlier. The Hearing Officer found in our favor on both points. First, he reasoned that there is no statutory authority for imposing a suspension of benefits for failing to respond to a department inquiry. Second, pension benefits are only deductible if from a base period employer. Our client's base period was 2019, but she last worked at the employer who contributed to the pension several years prior, and therefore was not deductible.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
January 4, 2022
Unemployment Appeal Won - No Just Cause to Terminate:
Our client was put on a performance improvement plan that ended in December 2020. Despite successfully completing the plan, she was terminated in February 2021. The employer told her that she could apply for other positions. OJDFS denied her benefits, holding that she was terminated with just cause and turned down an offer of suitable work when she did not apply for other positions. During a hearing, we showed that the employer lacked any just cause to terminate her. Further, the employer's suggestion that she apply for other positions was not an offer of work at all. As a result, she was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 30, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won - Documentation Requirements Satisfied:
Our client applied for and received PUA benefits for months, only to then receive a determination notice that stated he was overpaid for failing to provide documentation timely. We proceeded through appeals and a telephone hearing, showing the Hearing Officer that he did provide the documentation. As a result, the Hearing Officer found in his favor and eliminated his overpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 29, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won - Pension Not Deductible:
Ohio's PUA system attempted to deduct our client's pension amount from his weekly benefits. Through a telephone hearing, we showed the hearing officer that a pension should only be deductible if it is received from an employer for whom the claimant worked and received remuneration during their base period. The pension our client received was from an employer he worked for approximately six years prior to applying for benefits, and therefore was not deductible from his weekly benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 28, 2021
PUA Unemployment Appeal Won:
Our client was denied benefits, after months of receiving them, because the PUA system claimed that he had not provided sufficient employment verification. Through a telephone hearing, we showed that he had in fact provided sufficient documentation and as a result, his overpayment was eliminated and he was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 27, 2021
Unemployment Hearing Won After Termination For Absences:
Our client was absent from work due to bona fide medical reasons. When she returned to work, she properly provided medical documentation, but the employer terminated her for absences. We represented her through a hearing, where the employer attempted to give other excuses for the termination. However, the Hearing Officer agreed with us that the employer terminated her for an absence due to a bona fide medical reason, and this was without just cause.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 23, 2021
Unemployment Benefits Won - ODJFS Late Reversal Rejected:
Our client applied for and was approved for unemployment compensation after his job came to an end due to a lack to work. When his regular benefits ended and he applied for an extension, ODJFS retroactively denied all benefits that were paid to him. Through a Hearing, we were able to show that the initial determination became final, that ODJFS did not have jurisdiction to change a final decision, and as a result his overpayment was eliminated.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 21, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won - Termination During Leave of Absence:
Our client was on a leave of absence for a medical reason when his employment came to an end. ODJFS denied his claim for benefits, claiming he was on a voluntary leave of absence. We showed that he was on a leave of absence, but (a) that ended when he was terminated and (b) he was able to work shortly after he was terminated. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed that he was eligible for benefits once released to work.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 16, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won:
Our client had a meeting with upper management at his employer where he voiced several concerns about his employment. The parties did not reach an agreement regarding some important issues and, out of despair, our client told management that they may need to start looking for his replacement. The employer considered this as a termination, and as a result, he was denied unemployment benefits. Through a hearing, we showed he did not resign. As a result, his benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 7, 2021
Unemployment Benefits Won:
Our client applied for unemployment benefits after his hours were reduced. Months later, a determination notice was issued denying benefits, stating that he voluntarily reduced the hours. We showed the Hearing Officer that this was not accurate. Rather, his hours were reduced by the employer. As a result, he won the hearing and eliminated a large overpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
December 6, 2021
No Just Cause to Terminate Employee for Customer Complaints:
ODJFS denied unemployment compensation to our client, claiming the employer terminated him without just cause due to customer complaints. Through a hearing, we showed that the employer did not follow progressive discipline. Further, complaints are part of the customer service industry and not sufficient proof of misconduct by the employee. The Hearing Officer agreed, reversing the denial of benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 19, 2021
Unemployment Approved After Resignation:
Our client was initially denied unemployment compensation after resigning from his job. We showed ODJFS; however, that he only resigned in lieu of an impending discharge. Put simply, the employer told him that he was terminated but gave him the option to sign a resignation letter instead. Because the resignation was in lieu of an impending discharge, the case should have been evaluated for whether the employer had just cause to terminate him, not whether he had just cause to resign. As a result, his unemployment was approved with a backpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 19, 2021
School Employee Approved for Unemployment:
School employees typically do not receive unemployment compensation through summer breaks if they have a contract or reasonable assurance of employment at the beginning of the next academic year. Our client was denied benefits through the summer for this reason; however, we showed that he was a 12-month employee and should receive benefits through the summer because he suffered an unanticipated loss of income. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving his benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 18, 2021
Unemployment Won - No Just Cause to Terminate for Text Messages:
Our client sent a text message to her supervisor that was arguably unprofessional. However, it was an isolated incident and a minor one. Therefore, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. As a result, the unemployment hearing was won and our client was approved for unemployment compensation.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 17, 2021
PUA Benefits Won:
Our client was initially approved for unemployment compensation; however, the PUA later denied her benefits requiring repayment of a large overpayment. PUA claimed our client was not unemployed due to COVID. Through a hearing we showed that our client's cleaning business came to a halt upon COVID because clients were not willing to let her into their homes. As a result, we won the hearing and the overpayment was eliminated.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 17, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won - No Just Cause to Terminate:
Our client was terminated for sending a message to a co-worker that complained about newly hired employees. Even though the newly hired employees did not see the message or complain about it, and the message simply stated, "These guys are weird," the employer terminated our client. While ODJFS denied her benefits for being terminated with just cause, through a hearing we prevailed by showing this type of discipline was disciplinary overkill. As a result, the Hearing Officer concluded the termination was without just cause and approved benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 10, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won - Not Sufficiently At Fault for Termination:
Our client was terminated after seven years of employment due to an allegation that she did not properly handle calls. Through a telephone hearing, we demonstrated that the employer could not show her actions represented sufficient fault or misconduct to deny her unemployment compensation benefits. As a result, her benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 10, 2021
Unemployment Won - Client Did Not Refuse Work:
ODJFS denied our client's benefits, erroneously believing the employer's claim that she turned down an offer to return to work. Through a hearing, we showed that the employer lacked any evidence of any communication about an offer to return to work. As a result, the Hearing Officer removed a large overpayment ODJFS claimed our client owed.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 9, 2021
Severance Not Deductible from Unemployment Benefits:
When a person receives a severance payment, even as a lump sum, OJDFS will allocate that payment out over a number of weeks as deductible income reducing a person's benefits unless the employer allocates a lump sum severance to one particular week. ODJFS allocated out our client's severance payment, but by working with our client and the employer, we were able to obtain documentation to prevent the allocation. A hearing officer agreed, approving our client's benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 8, 2021
Unemployment Approved - Disability Payments:
To qualify for unemployment compensation, a person must have sufficient qualifying weeks of employment and income during their base period. Our client was denied benefits in part because ODJFS did not count disability payments she received from her employer as income. Through a hearing, we showed that such disability benefits do count as income, and as a result her unemployment benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
November 4, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won for "Independent Contractor"
Our client quit his job, but upon further discussions with his employer returned to work completing the same job but listed as an independent contractor rather than an employee. When he was laid off from that job, he was disqualified for having originally quit the job. We showed the hearing officer that the work he did as an "independent contractor" should have been classified as employment, and therefore it was sufficient to requalify him for benefits. The Hearing Officer agreed, eliminated a large overpayment and approved him for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 28, 2021
Unemployment Approved After Termination Without Just Cause:
Our client was terminated after an allegation that she did not properly assist with other hospital employees that were placing a patient in restraints. Through the hearing, we showed that the employer lacked reliable or credible evidence to support the allegations. As a result, her benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 27, 2021
Employee Terminated After PIP Approved for Unemployment:
The employer placed our client on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) after alleged performance issues and then it subsequently terminated her. We showed the hearing officer that the employer lacked evidence of further performance issues after the PIP, and as a result she was approved for unemployment benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 27, 2021
Unemployment Approved - Employee Did Not Turn Down Work:
ODJFS denied benefits to our client after the employer alleged that she turned down additional work hours. Through the hearing, we showed that our client did not receive the offer, which was allegedly sent by email, and as a result her denial was reversed and she was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 27, 2021
Unemployment Approved After Resignation for Medical Issues:
Our client suffered from certain medical conditions that impaired his ability to perform his work. After a leave of absence, he resigned because there were no other positions available which conformed to his physical capabilities and no other positions were offered to him. He was able to perform less physical work, but ODJFS denied his claim explaining they believed he did not have just cause to resign. Through a hearing, we showed that he did have just cause to resign as a result of a bona fide medical condition, and as a result he was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 26, 2021
Unemployment Approved After Altercation:
Our client was involved in an altercation at work after which he was terminated and the other employee kept their job. Through a hearing, we showed that our client was not the aggressor in the altercation and, as a result, the hearing officer approved his benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 25, 2021
Unemployment Approved - Late Filed Claims:
Our client did not file her weekly claims for several weeks, and then she contacted ODJFS and re-opened her claim, having it backdated to the date she stopped filing claims. ODJFS accepted her weekly claims but denied her for not maintaining her registration. The Hearing Officer disagreed, concluding that we were correct - with the re-opened claim approved retroactively, she did meet the registration requirements. As a result, an overpayment was eliminated and an backpayment approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 25, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won - Good Cause to Turn Down Work:
Our client was laid off and then offered an entirely different position to return to without sufficient time to consider the offer or discussion regarding what training she would receive for the new position. She turned down the offer and as a result ODJFS denied her benefits claiming show owed a large overpayment. Through a hearing, we showed the hearing officer that the offer was not a suitable one. As a result, the ovepayment was eliminated and she was eligible instead for a large backpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 21, 2021
PUA Claim Won:
The Ohio PUA system denied our client benefits because it claimed it did not provide sufficient employment and income verification. Through pursuing appeals, submitting documentation and representation through a hearing we prevailed. His overpayment was eliminated and he was approved for a backpayment instead.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 21, 2021
Unemployment Approved Despite Profanity:
Our client was pulled aside by a supervisor who proceeded to use profanity. Our client responded with some of her own profanity, and as a result she was terminated. A hearing officer agreed that, to terminate an employee with just cause for profanity, they should consider the severity of the profanity used; the provocation for the profanity; whether the profanity was isolated or part of a pattern; and whether other employees or customers were present. We showed that, in this case, while the profanity might have been severe, there was provocation, it was an isolated incident, and no other employees or customers were present. As a result, unemployment benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 15, 2021
Refusal to Return to Work - Unemployment Benefits Approved:
Our client was laid off from a job that claimed, nearly 1 1/2 years later, that she refused an offer to return to work. We appealed, showing that (a) she never received an offer to return to work; and (b) she had a COVID related reason for refusing any offer if it had been made. ODJFS agreed, approving her for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
October 8, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won:
Our client applied for and was approved for unemployment compensation. Nearly a year later, ODJFS issued determinations denying his benefits and claiming all that he was received was owed back as an overpayment. Through the hearing, we showed that the original determination became final and ODJFS did not have jurisdiction to reverse it a year later. The Hearing Officer agreed and our client prevailed.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
September 28, 2021
Good Cause to Resign Due to Being at High Risk for COVID:
Our client had medical conditions that placed him at high risk for COVID complications. He attempted to continue working, either by teleworking or under conditions with sufficient social distancing, but the employer was unable to provide this accommodations. As a result, our client resigned. Although he was at first denied unemployment, we worked with him to obtain medical documentation confirming his conditions and represented him through a hearing where we prevailed, showing the the hearing officer that he had good cause to resign. As a result, his benefits were approved and an large overpayment eliminated.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
September 24, 2021
Unemployment Hearing Won:
Our client was denied unemployment because ODJFS determined that he was not available for work. Through a hearing, we showed the Hearing Officer that, while our client preferred first-shift work, he was available for other work if offered to him. As a result, we prevailed at his hearing, eliminating a large overpayment, and securing a backpayment for him.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
September 23, 2021
Unemployment Approved For Employee Terminated for Absence:
Our client experienced a medical condition that caused him to be absent. The employer terminated him; however, he had medical documentation verifying the reason for his absence. The Hearing Officer agreed with us, that his absence was due to a bona fide medical reason and that he was not at fault for the absence or the termination. As a result, his benefits were approved with a backpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
September 17, 2021
Unemployment Approved After Resignation:
Our client experienced a medical issue that prevented him from continuing to work at his employer. Prior to resigning, he notified the employer of the concern and gave the employer an adequate opportunity to resolve the issue. After it was not resolved, he resigned. He also obtained medical documentation to show that, while he was unable to work that job, he was able to work other jobs. Despite taking all of the right steps, he was denied unemployment benefits until we represented him through a hearing and prevailed - obtaining a win with backpayments for him.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
September 8, 2021
Physical Therapist Approved for Unemployment:
Our client worked as a physical therapist. His employer terminated his employment claiming in part that some of his patients did to progress as much as expected. Through a telephone hearing, we demonstrated that the employer lacked any reliable evidence to support their allegations. As a result, the hearing officer agreed that the termination was without just cause. As a result, he was approved for his benefits with a backpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
September 2, 2021
PRN Employee Wins Unemployment Appeal:
Our client was moved to a PRN position by her employer and then the employer stopped calling her in for work. She applied for unemployment but months later received a denial of benefits and notice of overpayment. We represented her through her hearing and showed the hearing officer that she was unemployed through no fault of her own. As a result, she won her hearing and the entire overpayment was eliminated.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
August 26, 2021
Truck Driver Approved for Unemployment:
Our client was hired for a job but never put into work. He was denied unemployment as being terminated without just cause. Through a hearing, he prevailed and the denial of his benefits was approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
August 20, 2021
Teacher Approved for Unemployment Benefits:
School employees typically do not receive unemployment compensation through the summers if they typically do not work through the summers and have a reasonable assurance of employment in the fall. Our client was denied benefits through the summer because it was concluded that she had such a reasonable assurance. We prevailed at her hearing, showing the hearing officer that she did not receive that assurance.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
August 19, 2021
Temp. Employee Approved for Unemployment:
Our client worked through a temp agency that placed her with an employer. That employment opportunity came to an end, but she was denied unemployment compensation as a result of that employment ending. We showed the hearing officer that the real employer was the temporary agency, with whom she maintained employment though they did not have a place to send her to work. As a result, she was unemployed due to a lack of work and eligible for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
August 16, 2021
Unemployment Benefits Won - Unjust Termination:
Our client was terminated from their job after several medically related absences. We showed the hearing officer that the absences were due to bona fide medical issues and through no fault of our client. As a result, she won her unemployment hearing and benefits were approved with a backpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
August 4, 2021
Unemployment Benefits Approved After Termination Without Just Cause:
We represented a woman who was terminated after the employer allegedly received customer complaints about her service. We showed unemployment, however, that the termination was without just cause because she had no prior discipline and the employer lacked evidence to substantiate the complaints. As a result, she was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
August 3, 2021
Unemployment Approved for Terminated Employee:
Our client had a clean work record when the employer told him they were ending his employment because things, "were not working out." When he applied for unemployment, they denied his benefits claiming he quit without just cause. Through a hearing, we showed that he was terminated and the termination was without just cause. As a result, his unemployment compensation was approved with a backpayment.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
July 30, 2021
Unemployment Benefits Approved:
Our client had discussions with two employers while receiving unemployment compensation. ODJFS determined that he was denied benefits for turning down offers of suitable employment. We showed the hearing officer that the first job offer was for a job out of his field and at $10 less per hour than he had previously been receiving, and therefore was not an offer of suitable employment. We also showed the Hearing Officer that the discussions with the second job never led to an actual offer of employment. Therefore, his benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
July 23, 2021
Out of State Income Counts for Unemployment:
Our client was denied unemployment benefits in Ohio essentially because most of her income was from another state. We showed unemployment the amount of the income and verified her eligibility with the hearing officer. As a result, her benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
July 22, 2021
Unemployment Appeal Won:
Our client was denied unemployment compensation due to an allegation that she turned down an offer of suitable work. However, during the Hearing we showed that she never received an offer. She had some discussions with an potential employer about a potential position, but they never actually extended an offer. As a result, our client was approved for benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
July 21, 2021
No Just Cause to Terminate - Unemployment Benefits Approved:
Our client was terminated due to a general dissatisfaction with her work, according to the employer. However, through a hearing we showed that the large majority of the employer's concerns were due to reasons outside of the claimant's control. As a result, we won the hearing and benefits were approved.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
July 16, 2021
Unemployment - No Just Cause to Terminate Employee for Bona Fide Medical Issue:
Our client was absent from work due to a bona fide medical issue. The employer terminated her and unemployment denied her benefits, concluding that the employer had just cause to terminate based on the absences. We argued that fault is an essential element to prove just cause for a termination and an employee is not at fault when they have to be absent for a bona fide medical reason. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving our client for benefits, eliminating a large overpayment, and approving a backpayment of benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 15, 2021
Unemployment Won - Client Able to Work:
To qualify for unemployment benefits, a person must be able to work during their weekly claims. Our client needed to resign from his job because he was not able to work that job, but he was able to work other less demanding jobs. Unemployment denied his benefits; however. Through a hearing, we showed that he was able to work and eligible, and the Hearing Officer agreed.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
June 2, 2021
Two Cases - Unemployment Benefits Approved After Refusal to Work:
Our clients turned down an offer to return to work due to having high risk conditions for COVID, including being over age 65. Governor Dewine issued an executive order protecting people such as my clients, but that did not stop ODJFS from issuing a denial and demanding a large overpayment. We prevailed, however, showing that they were eligible for benefits. As a result the overpayments were eliminated and they were both issued a large backpayment instead.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
May 28, 2021
Unemployment Benefits Approved After Argument:
Our client raised concerns about his hours with his boss, only to have his boss tell him to go home. When our client returned to work, he was told that they believed he resigned. He explained that he did not resign and never told anyone he resigned, but the employer would not let him work. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that this was a termination without just cause and approved his unemployment benefits.
  
Unemployment Appeal Won
May 26, 2021
StarStarStarStarStar

"Professional, upfront, knowledgeable, made the whole appeals process way less stressful, made me feel comfortable at the hearing, and won my appeal! Highly recommend using!"
Josh

StarStarStarStarStar

"Brian is a very good attorney and I am very happy with the way that he handled my unemployment case. He is very professional and informative and easy to talk to and he explains concerns very well. I would recommend him to anyone. He is very thorough and made me feel very confident with him handling my case. Thank you very much for your hard work in my case."
Valerie

StarStarStarStarStar

"Thank you Brian for representing me with my unemployment case. I was over whelmed and devastated at the loss of my job after 27 years of employment. You was my rock that helped me through this nightmare, I couldn't have done it without you. You are very professional and easy to talk to, I appreciate all you did for me."
Sandra

StarStarStarStarStar

"Excellent service, not only did I win my case but the level of customer service was phenomenal!! Anytime i had a question it was answered so that i could understand it.
I was also extremely prepared and ready before we went to court.
It was such a nice process. I would recommend this company to anyone i know!!"  
Jennifer

StarStarStarStarStar

"Beat Walmart unemployment case!  Took the time to help me think this case through. Helped me prioritize the events that happened. Came up with a winning strategy that ultimately won my appeal hearing against the retail giant Walmart!"
Brian

StarStarStarStarStar

"There are only good things to be said about this Law Firm, Attorney Brian Smith and Attorney John Sivinski.  I was blindsided by separation at my former employment and then denied unemployment benefits as well.  In addition to the denial of benefits, I also lost two rounds of appeals.  Before my third appeal, which involved a phone hearing, I was very fortunate to find this Law Firm.  They were meticulous and extremely experienced in helping to turn the situation around."
Jill

StarStarStarStarStar

"Brian is very responsive and very thorough. I was very nervous throughout the process, and he made me feel relaxed and confident. I would highly recommend Brian to all my friends and family because I am confident he will not let them down, he is very trustworthy and personable. Thanks so much Brian for your professionalism and you eagerness to go the extra mile. You are an excellent attorney."
Sonya

StarStarStarStarStar

"Mr. Smith is an amazing lawyer who listens and takes his time to make sure he understands every detail of your particular case. I would recommend him to my family/friends if ever needed. Mr. Smith helped me understand the procedure which helped me better prepare myself for my hearing. The outcome was exactly what we were looking for. Thank you!"
Tiffinie

StarStarStarStarStar

"I was extremely happy working Brian & John on my case.  They were very thorough & easy to talk with.  I would highly recommend them to anyone!"
Debra

StarStarStarStarStar

"Great law firm.  My attorney help me immensely. My job fired me unjustly and they help me get my unemployment back. They help file everything and keep you updated on what going on. Very friendly and helpful. Wish these guys the best in the future!"
Chris

StarStarStarStarStar

"Brian and his colleague John were incredibly helpful and supportive. Not only did they make me feel secure, I felt represented and heard. I won my case with their help and hard work! I highly recommend them for anyone who is having to fight their employer for unemployment. I can not thank them enough!"  
Amanda

StarStarStarStarStar

"Brian Smith is the best! He handled my claim in a most timely manner an professional manner. Could not have done this by myself. Bravo!!!"
Doris

StarStarStarStarStar

"I would absolutely recommend Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd. Brian and John worked with my (juvenile) son and I on a very challenging case. The case even went to the Supreme Court. . . We wouldn’t have WON without their experience and dedication. They were very professional, considerate and understanding especially when things became overwhelming for us. We couldn’t be more thankful for their services."
Sonia

Unemployment Consultations

If you contact us for a free consultation regarding your unemployment case, there are some important questions you should be prepared to answer:

We attempt to respond to every request for an Ohio unemployment consultation the same day it is received. Due to an enormous increase in requests for free consultations, we are occasionally unable to respond until the following business day.  Double check your email address so you can receive a response. If you leave a number for us to call you back on, be sure that your voicemail is set up so we can leave a message if you are unable to answer or screening your calls.

Out-of-Office Notice - through August 2, 2021

While we typically encourage and provide free consultations every day, Mr. Smith will be unavailable to provide consultations until August 3, 2021. He will be available for free consultations after that time.

Contact Us

For a Free Telephone Consultation
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Please keep in mind that the success of any legal matter depends on the unique circumstances of each case and we cannot guarantee particular results for future clients based on successes we have achieved in past legal matters.

Main Office:
20545 Center Ridge Road, Ste. 215
Rocky River, OH 44116