Good cause for voluntary quit and negation of good cause

Posted on by

The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) has issued P-B-514 regarding good cause for voluntary quit and negation of good cause.  The case involves good cause for voluntary quit for verbal harassment and negation of good cause for failing to pursue remedial measures.

The decision first finds that the claimant was subjected to verbal abuse that was insulting, denigrating and intended to humiliate the claimant, and that the claimant was constantly belittled without justification in the workplace.  CUIAB held a reasonable person would find the treatment unacceptably harsh and abusive.  CUIAB continued that this treatment affected the claimant’s physical and mental well-being, and that overall there was an unacceptably harsh work environment.  Based on those findings, CUIAB held that the claimant had good cause to voluntarily quit her employment.

The decision continues that, although failure to give the employer an opportunity to resolve the situation negates good cause, there was not negation in this case.  The burden of proof is on the employer to show negation.  Failure of the employer to respond to an employee’s efforts to resolve a work-related issue relieves the employee of the obligation to make further inquiries or requests prior to leaving the job.

In this case, the claimant complained to human resources several times but did receive a response, and the no action was taken on the complaints.  Employer efforts to resolve a complaint may take significant time and an employee may be expected to be patient if they are informed of those efforts.  In this case, however, the employer did essentially nothing and did not respond to the claimant’s complaints.  As a result, the employer did not sustain its burden to show that the claimant negated good cause for her voluntary quit.  P-B-514 (April 18, 2018).

Review and hearing process for Treasury Offset Program collections

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has issued guidance regarding administrative review and state hearing process for debts submitted to the Treasury Offset Program (TOP) for collection.  TOP is a system to collect federal debts, including CalFresh overissuances (but not CalWORKs overpayments), from federal payments, including federal income tax refunds.

Counties must send a notice to clients before the debt is submitted to TOP.  The client has 60 days from receipt of the TOP pre-offset warning notice to request a county administrative review.  If this request is made within 60 days of receipt of the TOP pre-offset warning notice, the debt cannot be submitted to TOP.  If the request for administrative review is submitted after the 60-day timeframe, the TOP process continues pending the hearing but the client will be refunded any intercepted funds if the county rules in favor of the client.  If the county determines that the debt is not eligible for TOP submission, the debt must be deleted from the TOP system.

Clients are entitled to inspect and copy county record related to the debt prior to the administrative review.  The county must mail copies of the records to clients as a if needed as a reasonable accommodation.

The county review must include confirming that the overissuance notice was adequate and language compliant, that a demand letter/notice was sent including a due date, for inadvertent household and administrative errors, ensure that collection is within the three year statute of limitations, verify that the client was given the opportunity to appeal, verify that no responsible party is an active member of a CalFresh household and verify the balance of the claim and any collections received or payment agreements.  The county must complete its review and issue a decision within 30 days of receiving the client’s request.

If the client disagrees with the county administrative review decision, the client can request review by the federal Food and Nutrition Service within 30 days of the county administrative review decision.  The client is not entitled to a state administrative hearing to challenge the county administrative review decision.

If a client requests a state administrative hearing within 90 days of the date of the overissuance notice of action, the debt is not eligible for TOP and counties must ensure the debt is not submitted to TOP.  For hearing requests filed between 90 and 180 days of the overissuance notice of action, the TOP process continues unless the administrative law judge finds jurisdiction.  For hearing requests filed after 180 days of the date of the overissuance notice of action, intercepted funds will be refunded if the client wins the hearing.

If the client loses the administrative hearing the client can request rehearing.  If the rehearing request is granted within 180 days of the delinquency date, the TOP process must be suspended.  If more than 180 days have passed, intercepted funds will be refunded if the client prevails in a rehearing.  (ACL 19-22, March 25, 2019.)

Suppression of child support enforcement

Posted on by

The California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) has issued new policy regarding the use of suppressions of child support enforcement actions.

Suppressions shall not be placed on Financial Institution Data Match because this is considered a locate tool.

Suppressions shall not exceed 12 months except for bankruptcy and interest suppressions.  Bankruptcy suppressions are reviewed by Local Child Support Agency legal counsel.

Credit reporting must be suppressed for noncustodial parents who are incarcerated for more than 90 consecutive days unless the noncustodial parent has the means to pay or incarceration is for domestic violence or failure to pay child support.

Interest can only be suppressed because of a court order or active out-of-state order.

Income Withholding Orders can only be suppressed when there is a court court order that the wage assignment is stayed, the parties file a stipulation with the court and the noncustodial parent is compliant every month, or social security derivative benefits exceed the court ordered obligation.  (CSSP Letter 19-02, February 12, 2019.)

Forwarding child support court documents containing confidential information

Posted on by

The California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) has issued new policy regarding forwarding court documents received from individuals seeking or receiving child support services which contain confidential information.

The new policy is that Local Child Support Agencies must forward forms, attachments, and documents received from individuals seeking or receiving child support services to the courts unaltered.  DCSS states that the responsibility for redacting confidential information is with the party that wrote the document.

Local Child Support Agencies must inform individuals seeking or receiving child support services that documents submitted to the court are public records that are available for review upon submission.  (CSSP Letter 19-01, February 13, 2019.)

Updates to IHSS provider violation notices and time to request state administrative review

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has issued new forms upholding a third or fourth In Home Supportive Services provider overtime violation allegation.  CDSS established limits on the number of authorized hours an IHSS provider can work and travel time for IHSS providers.  (See ACL 16-46.)  A provider exceeding these limits can cause violations.  The third violation causes a 90 day suspension of the provider and the fourth violation causes a one year period of ineligibility to work as an IHSS provider.  CDSS established a state administrative review process to challenge third and fourth alleged overtime and travel time violations.

CDSS combined the notices for the third and fourth violations into one notice.  (See SOC 2282 and SOC 2283.)

Providers have 10 calendar days from the date of the notice upholding the violation allegation to request state administrative review.  Previously, the request for state administrative review had to be received by CDSS within 10 calendar days of the date of the notice.  CDSS changed its policy so that the 10 calendar days to request a state administrative review runs to the date of the postmark on the request for state administrative review.  (ACIN I-92-18, January 2, 2019.)

Using HSP to purchase housing structures

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has issued guidance regarding use of Housing Support Program funds to purchase housing structures.  CDSS has set aside $1,500,000 to purchase housing structures, which includes RVs, mobile homes and tiny homes.  Housing structures do not include any type of housing that is permanently fixed to the ground.  Counties can submit plans to CDSS for purchase of structures, and each individual purchase must be approved by CDSS.

Counties generally will not purchase structures until they have identified a family for the unit.  Counties must ensure that a habitability inspection of the structure is completed before purchase. 

Counties must identify a space where the structure will be located before purchase.  CDSS encourages counties to locate space within a designated park.  If developed parks are not available, counties may seek private land to place the structure.  The county must ensure that the family has a written lease agreement with the land owner.

Maximum purchase price for the structure is $24,999.  This includes inprovements to make the structure habitable.  This cap does not include other Housing Support Program services such as assistance with move in costs and ongoing space rent.

Families must enter into an agreement with the county.  This agreement can include a creating a lien to protect the structure from being sold without county approval; client obligations such as not reselling the property for a period of time, paying the taxes, and paying rent and other fees; county obligations such as retaining title for a period of time and assisting the client with taxes and other fees; using the structure as a personal residence; and recovering the property if the family does not meet their obligations.

Counties must identify parameters for how they will target families receiving Housing Support Program for structure purchases.  (ACIN I-85-18, December 7, 2018.)