The ODJFS letter says that H.B. 37 “encourage[s] employers
to provide the separation information we need to accurately determine claimant
eligibility.” The notice continues to
explain that employers “who repeatedly fail to respond promptly and adequately
to requests for information regarding unemployment claims can be charged for
any benefits that are ultimately found to be ineligible. These charges can lead to an increase in your
tax rate.” For those of you who fear that you might miss
the short deadline while you are on your annual vacation, be assured that no
employer will suffer adverse consequences until failing to timely and
adequately respond at least three prior times within the last twelve months.
Essentially, the new statute provides that an employer’s
account will be not credited for amounts of previously paid benefits recovered
by ODJFS if the following two
conditions are met:
1)
The benefits were initially paid because the
claimant’s employer (or any employee or agent of the employer) failed to
respond timely or adequately to a request for information regarding the unemployment
compensation claim;
·
A response is considered to be “timely” if received by ODJFS on time – which the
ODJFS letter says is 10 working days from when the request was sent
·
A response is considered to be “adequate” if answers
are provided to all of the questions raised by ODJFS on its form or the
employer participates in a fact-finding interview if so requested.
2)
The claimant’s employer (or any employee or
agent of the employer) previously established a pattern of failing to respond
timely or adequately within the same calendar year.
·
A “pattern of failing” is established after the third instance of benefits being paid because the claimant’s
employer (or employee or agent of that employer) failed to respond timely or
adequately to a request for information regarding a determination of benefit
rights or claims for benefits with a calendar year. The ODJFS letter explains that a pattern will
be found to exist if benefits are paid three times in error because of the
failure of an employer to respond timely or adequately within a calendar
year.
Employers
may appeal determinations that they failed to respond timely or adequately to
requests for information.
In addition, the new
statute also provides a 25% mandatory penalty when “any
fraudulent misrepresentation has been made by an applicant for or a recipient
of benefits with the object of obtaining benefits to which the applicant or
recipient was not entitled.”
For legal junkies, H.B. 37
provides amends Ohio Revised Code §4141.24(D)(3)(d) in relevant part as
follows:
(d)(i) An employer's account shall not be credited for
amounts recovered by the director pursuant to division (D)(3)(c) of this
section, and the mutualized account established in division (B) of section
4141.25 of the Revised Code shall not be charged pursuant to division (D)(3)(b)
of this section, for benefits that have been paid to a claimant and are
subsequently found not to be due to the claimant, if it is determined by the director,
on or after October 21, 2013, that both of the following have occurred:
(I) The benefits were paid because the claimant's employer,
or any employee, officer, or agent of that employer, failed to respond timely
or adequately to a request for information regarding a determination of benefit
rights or claims for benefits under section 4141.28 of the Revised Code.
(II) The claimant's employer, or any employee, officer, or
agent of that employer, on behalf of the employer, previously established a
pattern of failing to respond timely or adequately within the same calendar
year period pursuant to division (D)(3)(d)(ii)(III) of this section.
(ii) For purposes of division (D)(3)(d) of this section:
(I) A response is considered "timely" if the
response is received by the director within the time provided under section
4141.28 of the Revised Code.
(II) A response is considered "adequate" if the
employer or employee, officer, or agent of that employer provided answers to
all questions raised by the director pursuant to section 4141.28 of the Revised
Code or participated in a fact-finding interview if requested by the director.
(III) A "pattern of failing" is established after
the third instance of benefits being paid because the claimant's employer, or
any employee, officer, or agent of that employer, on behalf of the employer,
failed to respond timely or adequately to a request for information regarding a
determination of benefit rights or claims for benefits under section 4141.28 of
the Revised Code within a calendar year period.
(e) If the mutualized account established in division (B) of
section 4141.25 of the Revised Code is not charged for benefits credited to a
suspense account pursuant to division (D)(3)(d) of this section, a
corresponding charge shall be made to the account of the employer whose failure
to timely or adequately respond to a request for information caused the
erroneous payment.
(f) The appeal provisions of sections 4141.281 and 4141.282
of the Revised Code shall apply to all determinations issued under division
(D)(3)(d) of this section.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and
alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and
does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead
to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
