August 25, 2007

enhanced by
Login or register

Search Chicago jobs


All Chicago jobs

Post resume

Post a job

CAN THEY DO THAT TO ME?

Disability can interfere with unemployment benefits

By Carrie Mason-Draffen | Newsday columnist
August 19, 2006

Article tools

Q: I have been employed with the same company for more than 10 years. However, I have been out on disability for the last eight months because of surgery and rehabilitation. I will soon be able to return to work, but the company has been going through some financial hardships and has laid off a number of people. My boss has told me that as soon as I am able to return to work, I will be laid off as well. Would I qualify for unemployment benefits? If so, would my rate of benefits be determined by my former salary or my disability income?

A: The criteria for unemployment-insurance benefits eligibility are pretty straightforward. To qualify, you must have worked and received wages for your employment in at least two calendar quarters in the 18 months before filing your claim, according to the New York State Labor Department.

And you must have earned at least $1,600 in one of these quarters, among other criteria. It's worth mentioning that if you are still considered disabled when you lose your job, you probably wouldn't qualify for unemployment benefits because you must be ready and willing to work.

""If medical restrictions prevent you from doing any type of work, then you would not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits,"" said a spokeswoman with the Labor Department. ""Therefore, if you file for a disability benefit based upon total disability, you would not qualify for unemployment insurance.""

On the other hand, If you were laid off but are capable of performing some type of work and are willing to accept work within your medical restrictions, she said, you may qualify for benefits. The payments you would receive would be based on your salary, up to a maximum of $405 a week. It's always best to file a claim, if it comes to that, and hear what comes back. For more information, contact the Labor Department.

Q: My husband works two days a week for a religious non-profit organization. He was told he would be paid on the 15th and 30th of each month. But he receives his check much later than that. For starters, the checks are held for an additional five business days after the official payday. Then the check is direct-deposited into a general company checking account. After that, it can take up to eight full days before the direct deposit hits our account. Is this delay legal?

A: The delay is probably legal, according to a spokeswoman for the Labor Department. If a ""banking hiccup,"" or the direct-deposit delay, explains the holdup, that's not a violation, she said.

""The fact that the pay is not released until five days after the end of the pay period is not, in and of itself, a violation so long as the holdback is constant,"" the spokeswoman said.

In general, most employees, including those of non-profits, must have at least two paydays a month. Even though the delay may be legal, it certainly doesn't help your husband. I would suggest that he and other concerned employees meet with management and ask for a shorter time lag. They've got nothing to lose by asking.

Carrie Mason-Draffen is a columnist for Newsday, a Tribune Co. newspaper. E-mail her at yourmoney@tribune.com.

More articles

Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.

Would you recommend this?

Rate it:
No Somewhat Neutral Yes Highly

Images in the news



Photos of the week
Storms | Floods
Celebrity sightings
Tribune photo page
Send us your photos
Sponsor: Ritz Camera

ADVERTISEMENT

Popular stories

ADVERTISEMENT

Breaking news tips

When you know of breaking news, break it to us.

Home  > Business  > Your Money