Ohio Unemployment Appeal Attorneys

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Benefits ▼

IMPORTANT UPDATES:
Coronavirus (COVID-19)

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.

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:

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
The employee is sixty-five years of age or older; or
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
Potential exposure· to COVID-19 and subject to a prescribed quarantine period by a medical or health professional; or
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.

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
Akron General Partners, Inc.
All-Ohio Threaded Rod Co., 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.
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.
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 Middletown
Clerac LLC
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Cleveland Die & Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Coblentz Distributing, Inc.
Cobra Plastics, Inc.
Community Health Partners Regional Medical Center, Inc.
Component Repair Technologies, Inc.
Computer Discount, Inc.
Contactus, LLC
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
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
Portrait Innovations, Inc.
PPC Airfoils, Inc.
Pratt Lewisburgh Corrugating, LLC
Precision Thermoplastic Components, 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 Loading Services, LLC
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.
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
Stanley Steemer International, Inc.
Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc.
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
Sunstates Maintenance Corporation
Superior Metal Products, Inc.
Surgeforce, LLC
Swagelok Manufacturing Company
Sysco Cincinnati, LLC
Sysco Cleveland, Inc.
TA Operating LLC
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
UH Regional Hospitals
Umicore Specialty Materials Recycling, LLC
United Energy Healthcare Workers Corp
United Healthcare Services, Inc.
U.S. Postal Service
Unity Trucking LLC
Unlimited Advacare, Inc.
Upright Steel Fabricators & Erectors, LLC
US Well Services LLC
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

Unemployment Appeal Won:

To qualify for unemployment, a person must be able and available to work. Our client experienced a medical issue while collecting unemployment that required a brief stay at a hospital. ODJFS not only denied her for the week she was in the hospital, but for all weeks after. Through a hearing, we showed that she was only unable to work one week and was entitled to benefits for all weeks after. As a result, an overpayment was removed and a backpayment was issued.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 12, 2021

Unemployment Appeal Won:

Our client applied for unemployment when she was separated from her employment. Two weeks after, she received a final paycheck from the employer. Nine (9) months later, ODJFS issued a determination denying benefits because she, "was not unemployed at the time of filing . . ." Through a telephone hearing, we showed that she was unemployed despite the final paycheck. While the paycheck was deductible income for the weeks in which she received it, she was entitled to benefits for all weeks thereafter. As a result, she was approved for unemployment compensation, the overpayment was eliminated, and she was eligible for a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 12, 2021

COVID Quarantine Does Not Disqualify Unemployment Benefits:

To qualify for unemployment, a person must be able and available to work. Our client had to quarantine due to COVID while receiving unemployment and ODJFS not only denied benefits for the weeks of the quarantine, but also for all weeks after. During a hearing, we showed that he was able to work after the quarantine and the hearing officer agreed - eliminating the overpayment and approving him for benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 6, 2021

Pregnancy Does Not Preclude Unemployment Benefits:

To qualify for unemployment benefits, a person must be able and available for work. Our client was pregnant during her unemployment claims and gave birth. ODJFS denied her benefits, claiming she was unable to work during the pregnancy after after giving birth. We showed a hearing officer, however, that while there was a very limited time at the time of the birth that she could not work, she was able to work during the pregnancy and shortly after the birth. As a result, the denial of benefits was removed.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 5, 2021

Unemployment Approved After Resignation for Cut in Pay:

Our client worked primarily on commission. His employer removed is biggest client, which was predicted to cause a loss of 50 to 70% of his pay. He resigned, but was initially denied unemployment. We fought for his benefits and won. Even though the employer argued the they removed his client as a form of discipline, the Hearing Officer agreed with us that the employer lacked just cause to do so because it had provided no prior discipline or warnings about work performance. As a result, benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 4, 2021

School Employee Approve for Unemployment:

Employees of schools who typically have the summers off do not received unemployment compensation through the summers based on their school employment if they have a reasonable assurance of employment in fall. They may qualify through the summers based on other employment, if the employer does not follow required steps to give a reasonable assurance, or if their will be significant changes to the type of work or rate of pay. In this case, the employer did not follow the required steps to provide a reasonable assurance and, as a result, our client was approved for benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 4, 2021

Unemployment Approved - Client Available for Work:

To receive unemployment benefits, claimants must be able and available for work each week that they file claims. ODJFS determined that our client was unavailable for for work and retroactively denied him, stopping his benefits and claiming he owed a large overpayment. We prevailed at the hearing; however, showing the hearing officer that our client was available for work at all relevant times. As a result, he did not owe an overpayment, but rather ODJFS owed him a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 4, 2021

Unemployment Benefits Approved:

To qualify for unemployment benefits, a claimant must be available and able to work each week. Our client's claims were rejected because ODJFS determined that he was unable to work. By working with our client to obtain medical documentation and prepare for a hearing, we persuaded a Hearing Officer that he was able to work. As a result, his benefits were approved with a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 29, 2021

Unemployment Hearing Won:

Our client was receiving unemployment when he had a medical procedure completed. One of the requirements for receiving unemployment is that a person must be able to work. ODJFS denied our client benefits for all claims after the medical procedure; however, we prevailed at a telephone hearing by showing that our client was only able to work for the one week that they had the procedure. As a result, all benefits after that one week were approved with a backpayment for our client.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 16, 2021

Unemployment Appeal Won:

While receiving unemployment, our client became unavailable to work one week due to the need to care for a child. ODJFS denied her for not only that one week, but for all following weeks. Through a telephone hearing, we persuaded the Hearing Officer that that our client was eligible for benefits for all other weeks and as result her overpayment was eliminated and her benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 8, 2021

Employee Unable to Work Due to COVID Testing Approved for Unemployment:

Our client tested positive for COVID and was required to quarantine until she tested negative. In the meantime, the employer terminated her employment. Her claim for unemployment was initially denied, with ODJFS concluding she quit her employment without just cause. However, through a hearing we were able to persuade the Hearing Officer that this was a termination without just cause. As a result, our client was approved for benefits with a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 5, 2021

Unemployment Approved After Employee Worked a Temporary Job:

Our client was receiving unemployment benefits when he obtained a temporary one day job. However, instead of reopening his claim the following week when he did not have any more income, he simply filed another weeks claim as most people seem to do. He was denied for not reopening his claim and provided a sufficient reason for not having any more income. Through the appeal process, we showed that this was a temporary job and as a result he was approved for unemployment with his overpayment eliminated.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 31, 2021

Laid Off Employee Approved for Unemployment:

Our client was laid off from work, called back for a week, and then laid off again. The employer attempted to get her unemployment benefits denied by claiming she was on a voluntary leave. Through a telephone hearing, we conveyed that the employer was dishonest and as a result unemployment benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 30, 2021

Unemployment Benefits Approved After Termination:

Our client was placed on an performance improvement plan at work and then terminated. Through a hearing, we showed that performance issues improved after the PIP and that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving our client for benefits with a back-payement.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 24, 2021

Unemployment Appeal Won After Temporary Job:

Our client was laid off from work and applied for benefits. His employer later offered him a temporary assignment for one week, and then the layoff resumed the following week. Because our client did not restart/reopen his claim for the week with no earnings, unemployment denied him claiming he did not show a valid reason for not having work. After working to obtain documentation and submit an appeal, the appeal was granted and he was approved for benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 23, 2021

Employee Terminated After Resignation Approved For Unemployment:

Our client resigned from employment, providing a standard two-week notice. The employer terminated him before the end of the two weeks due to the resignation. Although he was initially denied for unemployment for lacking just cause to resign, we prevailed at a hearing by showing that it was a termination rather than a resignation. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that the law is, if an employee is discharged during a notice of resignation period, and the employer does not pay normal wages to the employee for the balance of that period, then the question will be whether there was just cause in connection with work to support the discharge. Here there was no just cause to terminate, and as a result unemployment benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 17, 2021

Etsy Seller Approved Unemployment:

Our client was approved unemployment compensation, but denied after she sold a few items on Etsy. We showed unemployment that our client, regardless of a few sales on Etsy, remained eligible for unemployment compensation. As a result, an overpayment of $30,000.00 that unemployment was seeking was eliminated, with our client approved for future benefits as well.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 15, 2021

Client with Lifting Restrictions Awarded Unemployment:

Our client had lifting restrictions that prevented her from working her current job, though she could have worked other jobs. While she was initially denied unemployment, we showed the Hearing Officer that her inability to work was through no fault of her own and she remained otherwise available to work. The Hearing Officer agreed, holding, "The leave of absence, therefore, was involuntary and claimant was involuntarily unemployed." As a result, her unemployment benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 4, 2021

Unemployment Won - Week of Earnings Follow by a Week With No Earnings:

When a person is receiving unemployment benefits, they may still have some work and some income. However, when they have a week of earnings followed by a week with no earnings, they cannot simply file regular claims but must restart their claims for the week with no earnings. This will prompt questions about why there were no earnings (e.g., did the person refuse work, were they fired, did they quit, etc...). The unemployment system makes this entirely unclear and as a result many people get fall into this trap that includes a denial for all subsequent weeks. Our client was one such victim; however, we appealed and prevailed at a telephone hearing by showing that the person did not have any work available during the week with no earnings. As a result, a substantial overpayment was eliminated for our client.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 3, 2021

Unemployment Benefits Approved After Termination:

Our client was hired as an account representative with certain revenue goals to meet. Despite meeting those goals and receiving a promotion, the Employer added additional performance criteria that our client did not meet for one month. After the Employer terminated our client and ODJFS initially denied benefits, we prevailed at a telephone hearing by showing that our client was a good employee, met the performance expectations he was given when hired, and the new performance expectations were not reasonable. As a result, his benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 26, 2021

PUA Benefits Approved:

Our client had sporadic W-2 employment during 2019 that came to an end, but she was also hired to start a new job in 2021. The new job offer was rescinded due to COVID. She applied for and was denied PUA benefits because they determined the reason the W-2 employment came to and end was not COVID related. During a telephone hearing, we persuaded that the hearing officer that, regardless of why the W-2 employment came to an end, she qualified for PUA benefits because she was hired to start another job but that new job offer was rescinded due to COVID. As a result, unemployment benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 26, 2021

Unemployment Case Won in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas:

Our client found her hours at work cut in half and benefits eliminated. The employer said that it would work to restore her hours, but after seven weeks they remained the same. As a result, she resigned. ODJFS and Hearing Officer Leanne Colton of the UCRC concluded that she did not have just cause to resign. We appealed the case to court, drafted legal briefs, and obtained a decision reversing the earlier denials and approving her benefits.

Unemployment Court Appeal Won

February 23, 2021

UBER Driver Approved for PUA Benefits:

Our client was an OBER driver who found their business fall off when the pandemic hit. He applied for PUA benefits, but was denied because unemployment believed he was not working simply to avoid contracting COVlD-19. We persuaded the Hearing Officer that the public health emergency severely limited his ability to continue performing his customary work activities, and as a result, he was approved for PUA benefits.

Unemployment PUA Benefit Appeal Won

February 18, 2021

Employee Approved for Unemployment Compensation:

Our client was hired for a local job, only to find during orientation that the employer hired her into a position that was different from the position she accepted. Further, the new position required travel and overnights out of the state. For several reasons, our client was unable to do such traveling and, after attempting to resolve the issue with the employer, she resigned. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that she had just cause to resign and she was approved for unemployment benefits with a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 12, 2021

Unemployment Appeal Hearing Won:

Our client had disagreements with co-workers who eventually accused our client of making threats. During a telephone hearing, we showed that the employer lacked any credible evidence that the accusations were true while we helped our client to credibly explain what happened. The Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate and as a result our client was approved for unemployment with a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 4, 2021

Unemployment Benefits Awarded:

Our client had a minor surgery while collecting unemployment and unemployment responded by denying the remainder of her benefits denied as being unable to work. We proceeded through a telephone hearing and persuaded that Hearing Officer that our client was in fact able to work and eligible for benefits. As a result, she received her unemployment including a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 4, 2021

Unemployment Approved After a Denial for a Week of Earnings Followed by a Week of No Earnings:

When an a claimant is receiving unemployment and has a week of earnings followed by a week of no earnings, they are supposed to restart their claim to explain why they had no earnings. This is less than clear and many claimants do not realize this. Our client was one such claimant and as a result was denied benefits and asked to pay back nearing $9,000.00. We helped show why our client had one week of no earnings and why they remained eligible for benefits, and as a result obtained a win for our client eliminating the overpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 3, 2021

Unemployment Benefits Approved After Resignation Due to Mistreatment and Reduction of Hours:

Our client worked for a restaurant where the owner seemed to target her due to the color of her skin. For example, the owner instructed her to straighten her hair while not giving the same directive to white employees. The employer then reduced her weekly hours from 30 to 12. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that our client had just cause to resign and as a result her unemployment compensation was approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

January 28, 2021

Unemployment Approved for Individual Terminated Due to Lifting Restriction:

Our client had a medical issue that limited the weight he could lift. The employer terminated him, claiming he could not do his job. Although our client was initially denied unemployment benefits, we demonstrated that there is no just cause to terminate for bonafide medical issues. As a result, our client was approved for benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

January 11, 2021

Unemployment Appeal Won

Our client accepted a new job while on unemployment but found the physical demands of the job exceeded is ability. As a result he resigned. Although unemployment initially denied him for the denial, we prevailed at the hearing by showing he was not medically able to do the job. As a result, his benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

January 6, 2021

Unemployment Benefits Approved for Employee Who Resigns Over COVID Safety Protocols:

Our client worked at a medical office where COVID safety protocols were not being followed. She raised her concerns to the employer to no avail and as a result resigned. The Hearing Officer agreed that she had just cause to resign and was approved for unemployment benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 24, 2020

Unemployment Appeal Granted and Benefits Paid:

Our client was receiving unemployment when he received a job offer. He could not work the week the job was offered due to a medical reason. ODJFS denied him benefits from the date of the job offer forward. The Hearing Officer held; however, that while he was not able to work one week, he was eligible for all other weeks and future claims. His unemployment was approved with benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 14, 2020

Approved for Unemployment After Unjust Termination:

Our client was asked to return to work after being laid off due to COVID. She had concerns about returning that she expressed to the employer and awaited a response. The employer responded by terminating her though, claiming she no-call/no-showed for work. The Hearing Officer disagreed and issued a decision approving our client for unemployment benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 4, 2020

Unemployment Approved After Turning Down Fast-Food Restaurant Job Offer:

Our client worked as a substitute teacher until he was laid off. While collecting unemployment, he turned down a job offer at a fast-food restaurant. Unemployment denied him for turning down the offer, but we showed that he had good cause to turn it down and the Hearing Officer approved him for benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 19, 2020

Unemployment Appeal Won - Severance Payment Applied to Only One Week:

Our client received a lump sum severance payment that ODJFS claimed was deductible income, disqualifying her from benefits, for several week. With our help, our client obtained a letter from her employer allocating the severance to the week in which it was paid. We persuaded the Hearing Officer that the severance should only applied to the week in which it was paid rather than several weeks, and as a result our client was approved for unemployment with a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 19, 2020

Unemployment Approved for Employee Who Resigned From Restaurant that Did Not Enforce Mask Wearing:

Our client was initially denied unemployment compensation after she resigned from her restaurant job. The employer did not enforce mask wearing despite her repeated requests and reminders for it to do so. This placed our client and her elderly mother with whom she lived at greater risk for COVID. We showed the Hearing Officer that our client had an legitimate safety concern, the employer was not following state mandates, and that our client notified the employer of the concerns and gave them an adequate opportunity to resolve them before resigning. As a result, the Hearing Officer ruled in our favor and approved unemployment compensation benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 13, 2020

Unemployment Approved After Employee Terminated for Unsubstantiated Allegations:

The employer raised several allegations to support its decision to terminate our client who worked at a cellphone store. During the hearing we showed the Hearing Officer that the employer lacked evidence to substantiate its allegations. Rather, our client presented credible testimony denying the allegations and as a result the Hearing Officer concluded that the employer lacked just cause to terminate our client. He was approved for unemployment compensation with a back payment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 13, 2020

Unemployment Won for Laid Off Worker:

Our client received a group text from his employer informing him that he was laid off. As a result, he applied for unemployment compensation only to find his employer challenging his claim by arguing that he resigned. Through a telephone hearing, we showed the Hearing Officer that our client was, in fact, entitled to benefits as a result of a layoff.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 6, 2020

Unemployment Approved for Individual Who Resigned for Medical Reasons:

When our client was hired at a lawn care business he explained that he had medical issues that required him to operate stand on mowers instead of push mowers. The employer, however, assigned him to work on push mowers. After trying and experiencing pain as a result, our client resigned. He was initially denied unemployment benefits; however, through a hearing we persuaded the Hearing Officer that he was eligible because his medical issues made the work not suitable for him.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 3, 2020

New Employment Removed Suspension of Unemployment Benefits:

Our client applied for benefits after losing a job and was denied. He then obtained new employment where he worked for more than six weeks until he was laid off due to COVID. He reapplied for benefits and was denied again due to the first job. We represented him through a telephone hearing and showed that his employment at the new job was for sufficient weeks and income to remove the suspension of benefits from the first job.

Unemployment Appeal Won

October 28, 2020

Employee Had Just Cause to Resign When Employer Violated DOT Rules:

Our client worked as a delivery driver at an employer who repeatedly violated Department of Transportation rules. After our client raised these concerns and the employer refused to address them, he resigned. ODJFS initially denied unemployment benefits claiming our client lacked just cause to resign. During a hearing, we persuaded the Hearing Officer that these violations occurred, that they created a safety hazard, that our client raised his concerns and gave the employer an adequate opportunity to resolve them, and as a result he had just cause to resign. His benefits were approved with a back payment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

October 23, 2020

Laid Off Employee During COVID Entitled to Unemployment:

Our client's employer sent a notice to its employees that said, any employee that has significant concerns or fear of continued employment shall be laid off and may apply for economic relief available through state or federal sources. The employer appealed, claiming our client was out of work due to health reasons. We prevailed, showing that our client was eligible because he was laid off pursuant to an employer layoff plan and that it was related to a lack of work.

Unemployment Appeal Won

October 14, 2020

Unemployment Benefits Approved:

Our client sought a job while she was on unemployment, attended an orientation and then was told that she would need to restart the orientation because she was unable to attend the second day. Though the employer never called her back or returned her calls to reschedule the orientation, unemployment denied her claiming she turned down an offer of suitable work. We convinced unemployment that she did not turn down work but rather was not called back and, as a result, she was approved for unemployment benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

October 9, 2020

Unemployment Approved After Resignation Due to a Bait-and-Switch at Amazon:

Our client was making a career in the customer service field and even had a related college degree. She accepted a job at Amazon as a customer service representative, only to find that her actual job duties would include working with delivery drivers to troubleshoot the application they used, as well as geofencing and package locating. Because she was given a technical job rather than a customer service job, the Hearing Officer agreed that she had just cause to resign. As a result, she approved for unemployment compensation with a back-payment of benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 16, 2020

Unemployment Benefits Paid:

Our client was denied unemployment as being monetarily ineligible. He filed an appeal, but after three months had not received an answer to his appeal. We stepped in, made contact with individuals and ODJFS, submitted payroll verification, and achieved a win for him and payment of the benefits he had been waiting for.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 11, 2020

Unemployment Overpayment Notice in Error:

Our client was issued a notice by unemployment that they were overpaid unemployment and owed back over $11,000.00. We appealed, showing that the decision was in error, and as a result the overpayment was withdrawn and our client did not have to pay back to unemployment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 11, 2020

Unemployment Benefits Approved - Customer Complaint Insufficient to Show Just Cause for Termination:

Our client had an otherwise good work record when a customer emailed a complaint about his "attitude." The Employer, without following up with the customer about the details of the complaint, terminated our client. The Hearing Officer agreed that the employer failed to provide credible evidence that it had just cause to terminate our client. As a result, he was approved for unemployment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 11, 2020

Terminations For Absences Due to a Bona Fide Medical Condition are Without Just Cause - Unemployment Approved:

Our client had several absences from work and was terminated. During a hearing, we showed that she had medical excuses for her absences. We argued and set forth caselaw that says that employees are not at fault for absences due to bona fide medical conditions. Even if the employer can terminate the employee, they are still entitled to unemployment. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved our client for benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 10, 2020

Employee Approved for Unemployment With Backpay:

Our client quit a job to work a new job, then worked the new job for more than six weeks before being laid off due to COVID. She was denied unemployment because ODJFS determined she lacked just cause to quit the old job. However, the rule is that such a suspension of benefits is removed if the employee earns sufficient income and either (a) starts the new job within 7 days of the old job and works for at least 3 weeks, or (b) starts the new job more then 7 days after the old job and works the new job for at least 6 weeks. Since our client met this requirements, the Hearing Officer agreed to approve her for unemployment with backpayments.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 8, 2020

Claimant Approved After Resigning Due to Medical Reasons:

Our client had been on FMLA and when that time ran out her employment ended. However, because she had a bona fide medical reason for being absent, the separation was a qualifying one. To be eligible for unemployment, she also had to show that she was able to work, even if she had some restrictions. We were able to show both that the separation did not disqualify her and that she was able to work, and as a result she was approved for unemployment with a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 4, 2020

Employee Fired While Off Work Due to Medical Reasons Approved for Unemployment:

Our client was off of work due to medical issues. When his short term disability came to and end, the employer terminated him. The Hearing Officer agreed that a termination due to a medical issue is beyond a claimant's control and therefore without just cause. The Hearing Officer also agreed that, upon our client's release to work with some restrictions, he became eligible or benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 1, 2020

Employer Lacked Just Cause to Terminate Supervisor for Workers' Errors:

Our client worked as a supervisor at a factory where he supervised production employees and quality assurance employees. He was not permitted to discipline those employees, however. After certain defects were found on some parts that were produced, the employer terminated our client. We were able to show the Hearing Officer that our client could not be expected to actively supervise every employee when he was often filling in on the line for an employee that had called off. In fact, the employer could not point to what role our client had in the errors at all. As a result, he was approved for unemployment compensation.

Unemployment Appeal Won

August 31, 2020

Just Cause to Quit Wal-Mart Associates for Medical Reasons:

While receiving unemployment, our client looked for another job and accepted one at Wal-Mart. However, she soon found that the physical demands off the job were too much due to a medical issue. As a result, she resigned and was denied unemployment due to the resignation. During the telephone hearing we showed that she had a medical reason to resign, attempted to resolve the issue with the employer before resigning, and as a result had just cause. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved her for unemployment with back pay for the weeks she did not receive benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

August 27, 2020

Quarantined Client Approved for Unemployment:

Our client's doctor provided medical documentation on more than one occasion that they recommended our client quarantine. During this time the employer terminated our client, stating they believed he did not want his job. The Hearing Officer ruled that our client was not approved for benefits through the regular unemployment system during the time of his quarantine because he was not able to work, though he could apply through the PUA system for those weeks. More importantly, the Hearing Officer ruled that the employer did not have just cause to terminate our client, so once his quarantine ended he did become eligible for benefits, was not overpaid benefits for those weeks, and was approved for benefits going forward.

Unemployment Appeal Won

August 27, 2020

Award of Unemployment Back-Payment After Hearing Officer Concludes Our Client Was an Employee and Terminated Without Just Cause:

The Employer claimed that our client was an independent contractor. We showed the Hearing Officer that the Employer's level of control over our client's duties caused him to be an employee, and thus eligible for unemployment. The Employer also argued that it had just cause to terminate our client, but we provided evidence that termination was too extreme and the Hearing Officer agreed. As a result, our client was approved for unemployment compensation.

Unemployment Appeal Won

August 4, 2020

Unemployment Claimant's Benefits Not Stopped for Severance Payment:

Our client received a lump sum severance payment that Unemployment used to disqualify him for several weeks. At our direction, our client obtained a letter from the Employer indicating that the lump sum severance should be allocated all to the week in which it was paid for the purposes of unemployment. During a hearing, we reviewed the law with the Hearing Officer and she agreed that the lump sum severance should only be counted as deductible income for the week in which it was paid rather than allocated over months. As a result, he received a back-payment for benefits owed.

Unemployment Appeal Won

July 24, 2020

Employer Lacked Just Cause to Terminate Supervisor for Subordinates' Failures:

The Employer terminated our client who managed a fast food restaurant. It claimed it had just cause to do so when her subordinates failed to open the restaurant as instructed while she was off ill. The Hearing Officer disagreed and approved her for unemployment including a back-payment for the weeks she filed but was not paid.

Unemployment Appeal Won

July 23, 2020

Employee Approved for Benefits When Terminated for Being Ill:

Our client was terminated when she was unable to provide her employer with a return to work date from her doctor. However, at the time she was terminated she did not have a return to work date. Her doctor did not know when she could return. Therefore, the employer lacked just cause to terminate her or being absent due to a bona fide medical reason and the Hearing Officer approved her benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

July 16, 2020

Unemployment Case Expedited:

Our client was denied unemployment benefits as being monetarily ineligible. He appealed the decision on his own on April 20, 2020, but as of July 8 he had not yet received a decision on his appeal. We stepped in and escalated his case on July 9. By July 14, he received Determinations approving his benefits as well as a backpayment for the weeks he filed but had not yet been paid.

Unemployment Appeal Won

July 14, 2020

Unemployment Back Payments Won:

Our client was terminated after the employer alleged that the employees she supervised complained. We put forth evidence that showed the employees were merely upset for being instructed to do their work and, if the employer disliked our client's management style it should have provided a warning or training before terminating her. As a result, she won her hearing and as approved for unemployment benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

July 6, 2020

Just Cause to Resign From Employer Who Refused to Provide COVID-19 Protective Equipment:

Our client found her employer refused to provide protective equipment for COVID-19 and refused to follow safety precautions, even after she asked them to follow proper protocols. As a result, she resigned. After initially being denied unemployment compensation, we persuaded a hearing officer that this satisfied just cause to resign. Our client was approved for her unemployment and provided backpayments.

Unemployment Appeal Won

June 30, 2020

Employee Terminated Without Just Cause - Benefits Paid:

Our client was terminated after an accusation of harassing a co-worker; however, we showed the Hearing Officer that the employer lacked any proof of wrongdoing or prior discipline. Therefore, the Hearing Officer agreed that the termination was without just cause and our client was approved for unemployment with back-pay.

Unemployment Appeal Won

June 17, 2020

No Just Cause to Terminate For Leaving the State During COVID-19:

Our client went to New York for a personal matter; however, while he was gone his employer implemented a policy prohibiting leaving the state during COVID-19. In turn, it terminated our client when he returned to work. The Hearing Officer agreed that there was no just cause to terminate him because (a) the policy was issued while he was already out of the state; and (b) the employer was aware that he had left the state. His unemployment was approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

June 12, 2020

Employer Lacked Just Cause To Terminate for Facebook Post:

After an employer informed our client of a demotion, she put a post on Facebook that hard work and loyalty meant nothing, but she did not mention her employer or indicate that she was talking about work. The employer jumped to its own conclusions about the post and terminated her. The Hearing Officer agreed with us, that the post did not violated the employer's social networking policy and did not constitute misconduct. As a result, our client was approved for unemployment, including back-pay for the weeks it had initially been denied.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 29, 2020

Unemployment Benefits Won:

Our client was a supervisor. One of the people he supervised became upset with him due to a disciplinary warning and to retaliate, she claimed he had threatened her. It was confirmed that this was not true and our client told the other employee that he did not appreciate her telling a lie about him. The employer terminated our client. During a hearing, we showed unemployment that the accusation did not support just cause for termination and the Hearing Officer ruled in our favor.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 22, 2020

Unemployment Appeal Won With Backpay:

After our client was terminated for moving seats during a meeting because a co-worker's perfume was aggravating her respiratory condition, ODJFS denied her unemployment benefits repeatedly. We appealed, showed the Hearing Officer how ridiculous the termination was, and obtained a decision awarding our client eligibility and a back-payment for the weeks ODJFS should have been providing benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 10, 2020

Employee Terminated Without Just Cause:

Our client was terminated after an allegation that he falsified time sheets. However, we presented a case to the Hearing Officer that showed the employer's records were unreliable and could not support a termination with just cause. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving our client for unemployment compensation with back-payments.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 18, 2020

Employer Lacks Just Cause to Terminate Employee For Walking Away From Manager's Threatening Behavior:

Our client was questioned by her employer about an accusation, during which a manager raised his voice. Our client started to leave the manager's office when she was told they would consider her to have resigned if she left. She returned to the office, only to have the manager increase his attack, yelling and pounding his fist on his desk. Our client left the office again and returned to her work duties when the employer told her to leave. Despite the employer claiming our client resigned, we showed the hearing officer that she was terminated without just cause and her benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

January 24, 2020

Employer Lacked Just Cause to Terminate Probationary Employee:

Our client was terminated for an allegation that he failed to report an auto accident. We showed that he was not at fault for the accident, did not initially observe any damage, and that he called the accident in within minutes. Even though our client was a probationary employee, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate in these circumstances. Our client was approved for unemployment and issued a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 18, 2019

Employee Unjustly Terminated:

Our client was one of several staff that went with students to a field trip. One of the students walked away from the group and the employer terminated our client as a result. We showed that our client was not assigned to supervise this student. The employer's reliance on self-serving written statements of other staff on the trip was found to be in error as the statements were not credible when countered by our client's credible testimony given under oath. As a result, our client was approved for benefits and received a backpayment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 17, 2019

Improperly Classified as an Independent Contractor:

Our client accepted a job offer only to find out that the employer planned to classify him as an Independent Contractor. Independent contractors are generally paid with an 1099 without taxes being withheld and they are not eligible for unemployment compensation. However, there are rules and tests to determine whether a person should be classified as an employee or independent contractor. In this case, we showed that the employer improperly classified our client and, as a result, he was eligible for unemployment compensation.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 12, 2019

Unemployment Benefits Approved - Employer Lacked Just Cause for Termination:

Our client was a manager who was terminated because she was accused of giving discipline to a staff member in front of other employees and because the employer believed she had not met her goals under a performance plan. The employer failed to present any witness regarding the discipline given to the other employee and our client credibly testified that she gave the discipline in an office with the door closed. With regard to the performance plan, the Employer agreed that our client's goals and expectations had been changed and she still had another month left to meet the revised goals. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 11, 2019

Credible Testimony Leads to Approved Unemployment:

Our client was terminated, despite having no prior discipline, after an allegation that she failed to pass a test at work. Through preparation and presentation of her case, we presented credible evidence that she did pass the test. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved her unemployment compensation.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 27, 2019

Progressive Discipline Matters:

An employer terminated our client for making an error on her time sheet even though she had no prior discipline. The Hearing Officer agreed that the error was not intentional and the employer lacked just cause to terminate an employee for a single incident with no prior discipline.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 27, 2019

Employer's Faulty Investigation Leads to Approved Benefits:

Our client was terminated for an allegation of falsifying her time card, but when she was terminated the employer failed to allow her to fully respond or to get her phone that she asserted had proof that the allegation was untrue. The employer then proceeded with the hearing offering conclusory assertions without any evidence to support its claim. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked sufficient just cause at the time of the termination, and the benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 21, 2019

No Just Cause to Terminate for Sales Goals:

Our client was terminated for failing to meet sales goals after being placed on a performance improvement plan. We were able to show the hearing officer that the goals were aspirational and not requirements of the job, that the goals and the job had changed, that our client had received a positive performance review, and that another sales person who did not meet their "goals" was not disciplined. The Hearing Officer agreed that the termination was without just cause and that our client was eligible for unemployment compensation.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 13, 2019

No Just Cause to Terminate Employee Without Prior Discipline:

The employer terminated our client even though she had not received any prior discipline or notice that her job was in jeopardy. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that the employer had not shown that our client purposely broke any rules or policies, that she was insubordinate in any way, or that she was subject to discharge for any reason. As a result, our appeal was granted and our client was approved for benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

October 16, 2019

Employer Lacked Just Cause When Spouse Called Off for Husband:

Our client's wife notified the employer that her husband would not be able to work due to a medical reasons. The employer responded by terminating our client claiming he no-call/no-showed. The Hearing Officer agreed that the absence was beyond our client's control and the employer received adequate notice due to the circumstances. Our client's unemployment compensation claim was approved and he was granted back-pay.

Unemployment Appeal Won

October 10, 2019

Discharge for Bona Fide Medical Reason is Without Just Cause:

Our client had several absences from work, exceeding the employer's attendance policy. However, the absences were due to a bona fide medication reasons. The Hearing Officer agreed that an employer lacks just cause to terminate for absences due to bona fide medical reasons, and as a result our client was approved for unemployment and granted back-payments.

Unemployment Appeal Won

October 4, 2019

No Just Cause to Terminate For Absences Related to Medical Issues:

The employer terminated our client for violating their attendance policy; however, the Hearing Officer agreed that terminations are without just cause when the absences are due to a bona fide medical issue. As a result, we won the unemployment hearing.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 19, 2019

Unemployment Appeal Won:

The employer discovered two incidents of paperwork being altered or incorrect and it terminated our client as a result. We showed the hearing officer that our client had not engaged in the alleged misconduct and as a result her unemployment benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

September 10, 2019

Unemployment Approved For Employee Who Employer Erroneously Classified as an Independent Contractor:

The employer failed with pay unemployment taxes for our client by claiming they were an independent contractor. We showed during the hearing that there was not a contract for a certain piece of work at a fixed price, the claimant did not have the right to employ assistants, there was no obligation to supply necessary tools or supplies, claimant did not have the right to control the progress of the work, she was required to work set hours, she was paid on a regular weekly basis, and she was not reimbursed for expenses. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed that our client was actually an employee and she had just cause to resign when the employer cut her pay in half.

Unemployment Appeal Won

August 15, 2019

Cut in Hours Justified Resignation:

The Hearing Officer agreed with us that our client had just cause to resign from his position when it was shown that he was hired for a full-time position but only allowed to work two days per week. Back payments to our client were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

August 15, 2019

Unemployment Approved When Employee Resigns Because Employer Fails to Pay Rate Agreed to in Interview:

During our client's interview, they were told that they would earn $12.00 an hour and work full-time; however, when they arrived for the orientation they were told that they would receive less than $9.00 an hour and work part-time. They found themselves denied unemployment when they resigned, but the Hearing Officer agreed with us that there was just cause to resign and their benefits were approved with a back-payment.

Unemployment Appeal Won

July 22, 2019

Unemployment Benefits Approved:

The employee was terminated for allegedly falsifying call records; however, the hearing officer agreed that the employer's choice to skip all of its progressive discipline steps violated just cause and therefore unemployment benefits were approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

May 28, 2019

No Just Cause to Terminate Employee Who Wanted Shift Change:

After our client asked to switch a a different shift, the employer determined there were no openings on other shifts and terminated our client. While the employer maintained that our client quit, the hearing officer agreed that this was a termination and the employer lacked just cause. We were able to obtain a decision approving our client's unemployment claim with back-payments.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 12, 2019

No Just Cause to Terminate for Insubordination:

The employer called a meeting with our client, started to argue with him, and then terminated him without giving a reason. The employer then claimed it had several reasons to terminate including insubordination during the final meeting. We showed, however, that the employer lacked evidence to support any of its allegations. Further, an employer should be limited to the reason it gave at the time of the termination and, in this case, the employer did not provide any reason. Therefore, it lacked just cause to terminate.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 9, 2019

Our Client Was Attacked After an OSU Football Game Wager, Terminated and Denied Unemployment - Until We Won His Hearing For Him:

Our client and co-worker placed a wager on an OSU football game and when our client asked the co-worker to pay what was still due from the wager, the co-worker rushed him and put him in a headlock until other employees removed him. The Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate our client who was the victim in the altercation.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 8, 2019

Postal Service Employee Approved:

Our client accepted a temporary position from the U.S. Postal Service through the holidays. After the temporary position came to an end, he reapplied for unemployment but was denied. After a hearing, we obtained a decision approving his unemployment claim and back-pay.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 4, 2019

Termination During Performance Improvement Plan is Without Just Cause:

While the employer argued that it had just cause to terminate our client during a Performance Improvement Plan, we showed that the employer had not given our employee till the end of the PIP to meet his goals and nothing else occurred during the PIP that justified termination.

Unemployment Appeal Won

April 2, 2019

Student Approved for Unemployment:

Although our client was initially denied unemployment because ODJFS claimed she was ineligible due to (a) a disqualifying separation and (b) because she was going to school, we prevailed at her hearing. The Hearing Officer agreed that (a) the employer lacked just cause to terminate her and (b) the schooling did not disqualify her because she was attending school before she was terminated.

Unemployment Appeal Won

March 27, 2019

Eligible For Unemployment - Medically Able to Work:

After our client was denied unemployment due to an allegation that she was not medically able to work, we researched her case and gathered medical documentation for the hearing officer. That hearing officer agreed that she was able to work and approved her claim for unemployment benefits.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 27, 2019

Fired for Asking, "Are you calling me a liar?"

The employer met with our client on two occasions, made allegations about his work performance and our client answered the allegations. When the employer did not seem to believe our client, he asked, "Are you calling me a liar?" The employer claimed this was insubordination and terminated him. The Hearing Officer agreed that this did not rise to the level of insubordination and did not warrant termination.

Unemployment Appeal Won.

February 21, 2019

Unemployment Approved After Employer Changes Duties and Schedule:

The Employer changed our client's job duties, cut their full-time job down to 16 hours per week, and would not confirm the new rate of pay. The Hearing Officer agreed that our client was involuntarily unemployed through no fault of her own and she was not required to accept the new position because the reduction in hours/pay made it not suitable.

Unemployment Appeal Won.

February 19, 2019

Employer Lacked Just Cause to Terminate:

The employer claimed our client did not call in for three absences and that she was not medically able to work. We showed that our client did call in for each absence and, although with some medical restrictions, was able to work. The Hearing Officer agreed.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 11, 2019

Cafe Lacks Just Cause to Terminate Server:

After a telephone hearing, the Hearing Officer agreed with our client that they did not engage in misconduct to justify their termination.

Unemployment Appeal Won

February 8, 2019

Offer of Reduced Hours and Split Shift is Not an Offer of Suitable Work:

Our client worked full-time, was laid off, and then offered a position at about half the hours and split - with a couple hours in the morning and a couple hours in the afternoon. The Hearing Officer agreed that this was not an offer of suitable work that our client was required to accept, and thus his application for unemployment compensation was approved.

Unemployment Appeal Won

January 18, 2019

Poor Judgement May Not Be Sufficient Fault or Misconduct to Justify Termination:

The Hearing Officer agreed that our client may have taken an act at work that demonstrated poor judgement, it was not an act that demonstrated a disregard of the employer's interests or of sufficient fault/misconduct to justify termination. The employer's delay of three months to terminate the employee after the act was also a factor leading to the hearing officer approving unemployment compensation.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 7, 2018

Calling a co-worker a Peppa Pig Does Not Give Just Cause to Terminate:

Our client and a co-worker were having an argument during which the co-worker was called a Peppa Pig. The Hearing officer agreed that there was not sufficient fault or misconduct to justify termination.

Unemployment Appeal Won

December 4, 2018

Unemployment approved after resignation due to physical limitations:

Our client took a job while unemployed that was physically demanding. When the job turned out to be too much for him, he attempted to move to another position at the employer but was unable. The Hearing Officer agreed that this was just cause to resign.

Unemployment Appeal Won

November 20, 2018

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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