Case Law Summaries

Rohrman v. Board of Review

• Opinion Date: January 22, 2002
• Business Law
• E-Mail

UNEMPLOYMENT—An employee who does not receive mandated unemployment eligibility information from an employer may be eligible for benefits even if the benefits application is made out of time.

An employee was terminated as part of a reorganization. He received severance pay equal to two years’ salary. He alleged that about eighteen months later he became aware that he might be eligible for unemployment compensation and filed a claim for benefits. The claim was denied because during the “base year” that preceded his filing of the claim, he did not work and had no earnings. Under New Jersey law, the filing of a claim establishes an individual’s base year. Also, “while the receipt of severance pay does not bar an individual’s eligibility for benefits, such payments ‘may not be used to establish ... his ... monetary eligibility for benefits… .’” The employee asserted that when he received his severance benefits, “he was not told, nor did he know, that he was eligible for unemployment benefits.” New Jersey statutes require that “[e]ach employer shall give to each individual at the time he becomes unemployed a printed copy of benefit instructions.” The Appellate Division did not have a copy of the Division of Unemployment’s benefit instructions, but assumed that they would have enlightened the employee as to his eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. The Court felt strongly that the law was intended “to insure that the employee is advised of his or her right to seek unemployment benefits,” and that failure to give unemployment eligibility information to the employee would be significant in determining whether the employee should be eligible to collect unemployment benefits even when the claim was filed after eighteen months. This case raised a significant number of issues, none of which had been explored by the unemployment appeal tribunal. Accordingly, the matter was remanded for further proceedings “including exploration and resolution of the question of whether the benefit instructions referred to in [the applicable statute] were supplied to [the employee], and if not, the significance of that omission.”

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.