Spotlight: Access to Unemployment Benefits

Janet Chung, Legal Counsel

October 8, 2008

With the headlines lately focusing on the downturn in the economy, unemployment benefits are more than ever a crucial piece of the safety net for many workers and their families. Yet the past few years have seen attempts to limit access to benefits – including changes that affect women disproportionately.

Legislative and Case Developments

Historically, individuals have been eligible for unemployment if they become unemployed through no fault of their own and are physically able to work and are available and actively seeking to work. Generally, individuals who are laid off are eligible for benefits.

In addition, workers with “good cause” to leave work could receive benefits, even if they had voluntarily left their employment. The Employment Security Department had discretion to consider whether the circumstances constituted “good cause.”

But in 2003, the Legislature amended the Employment Security Act and enumerated only ten specific reasons for leaving work that could constitute “good cause,” with an eleventh reason added in 2008. The reasons included leaving work due to the worker’s own illness or disability, or the death, illness, or disability of an immediate family members; protecting oneself or an immediate family member from domestic violence or stalking; unsafe working conditions.

But other reasons that had previously established to be “good cause” were excluded. Of particular import to women, prior to the legislative changes, “compelling personal reasons” could provide “good cause” to voluntarily leave work. Thus, workers who left work to follow spouses because of a spouse’s mandatory work transfer, or because of other family or domestic responsibilities, also could qualify for benefits. Under the changes, however, only moves to accompany transferred military spouses were “good cause.”

In a victory for workers, in June 2008, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the statutory list of defined “good cause” reasons was not an exclusive list. (Spain v. Employment Sec. Dep’t.) The Department issued emergency rules in July 2008 to implement the Spain decision. But what remains unclear is to what extent the Employment Security Department will return to the pre-2003 changes in assessing eligibility for unemployment benefits – including allowing “compelling personal reasons” to constitute “good cause.”

Impact on women

The Legislature required the Employment Security Department to conduct a study of the impact of the 2003 changes. The Department’s own study found a disparate and detrimental impact on women. While all subgroups saw an increase in denials of benefits, female claimants were denied at a higher rate than men. Specifically, denials relating to domestic and marital responsibility showed the most significant disparity along gender lines.

Other situations can likewise adversely impact women and, if “good cause” is narrowly defined, force them into catch-22 situations. In the Spain case, for example, Ms. Spain left work because she suffered daily verbal abuse on the job. Prior to the legislative changes, courts had acknowledged a worker who left an abusive employer was not disqualified from receiving benefits.

Current Developments

The Law Center will continue to fight for broad access to unemployment benefits when workers are forced to leave employment through no fault of their own.

We will be advocating in the legislature and during the Department’s rulemaking process to ensure that “good cause” includes compelling personal reasons that have a particular impact on women.
Our docket includes several pending cases challenging denials of benefits to women who left work to follow their spouses; we contend these denials violate our state’s Equal Rights Amendment.
And in our most recent court victory, Lake v. ESD, a trial court found that our client, who had left work to care for his dying same-sex partner, did have good cause to leave work and was therefore eligible for benefits. Also, the Department is considering changes to its definition of “immediate family”; we’ve asked the Department to formally change the rule to recognize others in stable domestic relationships such as Mr. Lake and his partner.

Access to unemployment benefits, particularly in such uncertain economic times, is extremely important to guaranteeing the well-being of Washington’s families. We will continue to keep you posted as we work to protect these important economic rights.

Learn More

The Unemployment Law Project, which has offices in Seattle and Spokane, provides self-help resources and helps individuals secure unemployment benefits.
Washington LawHelp provides several on-line self-help resources relating to unemployment compensation.
The National Employment Law Project, a national workers’ rights advocacy organization, has information about public policy relating to unemployment benefits.