Pennington v. Didrickson

No. 92-3725 (7th Cir. Apr. 11, 1994) ; Clearinghouse Number: 39752

Description

Seventh Circuit Holds Base Period Provision of Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act Subject to Social Security Act's "When Due" Clause

Abstract

Reversing, the Seventh Circuit has held that the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act (IUIA)'s section 237, which defines the base period for qualifying wages, is an administrative provision subject to the requirements of the "when due" clause of the Social Security Act. Claimants filed this class action alleging that the definition of "base period" in section 237 of the IUIA violated the "when due" clause of section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act. Under section 237, defendant Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) reviews a claimant's earnings during the base period, which excludes wages earned in the quarter immediately preceding the quarter in which the claimant files for benefits (the "lag quarter") and the quarter in which the claimant files to determine if the claimant has a valid claim. When claimants do not have sufficient earnings during the base period but would have if the lag quarter was considered, they must wait for a quarter or more before they may claim benefits. Plaintiffs claimed that it would be administratively feasible for IDES to consider the lag quarter in calculating claimants' qualifying wages. The district court held, as a matter of law, however, that section 237 was not an administrative method subject to the "when due" clause but rather an "eligibility" provision. The court reasoned that claimants who would have sufficient qualifying wages if the lag quarter wages were included did not experience any "delay" in receiving benefits because those benefits were not "due."Reversing, the Seventh Circuit held that section 237 is subject to the clause and remanded for a determination of defendant's compliance with its requirements. Relying on Jenkins v. Bowling, 691 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1982), the Seventh Circuit concluded that the treatment of section 237 (which determines when IDES will count certain earnings as qualifying wages) as an eligibility provision would render the "when due" clause a virtual nullity, limiting it to cases in which the state concedes that unemployment is due to an individual and simply fails to establish administrative mechanisms that pay the individual within a reasonable time. The court noted that a contrary decision would allow IDES to delay determination of eligibility and erode the congressional intent of requiring prompt administrative provision of unemployment benefits.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs represented by Jeffrey Gilbert, Karyn Glass, Robert Lehrer, Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, 343 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 341-1070; Nelson Brown, Lauren Simon.
Docket Date
1994-04-11 00:00:00+00:00

Files

No files available.

Filed under: