HB 1228 tweaks the unemployment law to allow for the maximum chance of getting full federal funding of extended unemployment benefits.  To meet federal standards, the state law needed to alter the definition of an economic downturn triggering the extnsion.

SB 551 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee making an oral or written complaint, or testifying in an action relating to Maryland’s wage laws.  The law clarifies that taking adverse action in retaliation means not just firing the employee but demoting, or threatening to fire or demote the employee, or taking any other adverse action “that would dissuade a reasonable employee from making a complaint, bringing an action, or testifying in an action under” the law.  A violation of the law is a misdemeanor.

HB 211 changes the name of the Maryland Commission on Human Relations to the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, effective October 1.

The study found that younger workers had more frequent but shorter spells and that workers in the age range 45 to 54 had the longest. The length of the spells was longer for more highly educated and for non-white workers. Women were more likely to experience periods of unemployment, but their spells were no longer than that of men.

The study also looked at whether people receiving unemployment benefits were more likely to be unemployed longer; apparently some policymakers believe that the availability of unemployment insurance acts as a disincentive to finding work. The length of the spell of unemployment was several weeks longer among those receiving the benefits. The study did not draw any conclusions from this difference, stating that it may be related to other factors. More interesting was the fact that only 20% of the individuals followed did receive unemployment benefits.

The eligible employee must have been receiving unemployment benefits, or exhausted them in the last year, and the position filled must be newly created or vacant for six months or more.  People who were denied unemployment benefits therefore do not qualify for the subsidy.  Hard luck for them, since they have been without any compensation, but this incentive is designed to trade the burden of unemployment benefits for a tax break.  A few other restrictions (designed to avoid loophole jumping) are detailed in the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation’s flyer.

This sets the stage for the classic clash of interests in Annapolis.  Some business interests are asking for a reduction of benefits, while others are urging higher weekly benefits and more weeks.  An emergency bill is pending this session, and has made it past the first stage.  According to the bill, some of the changes to the law are necessary to qualify for the federal stimulus funds.

One of the more employee friendly provisions changes the formula for calculating the weekly unemployment benefit, by looking at the most recent four quarters of pay rates.  This provision would help workers who had been earning increased amounts in their fields before becoming unemployed.

In addition, the law provides for extended benefits and training for unemployed workers who have been unemployed for an extended period, and are in a declining occupation, or were laid off in a permanent reduction in force.  Employers’s rating experience is not charged for unemployed individuals receiving the additional training benefits.

Michelle Parham worked for several months for Mid-Atlantic Baking Company.  She called in sick one day early in her tenure, then again for two consecutive days.  Upon her return, her supervisor gave her a write-up, with the box marked “termination” checked.  Another company document states that Ms. Parham walked out without clocking out, and thus was labeled a voluntary quit.

It is difficult but not impossible to obtain unemployment benefits if one quits a job; the reason for quitting is crucial.  In this case, though, Ms. Parham contended that she was fired, and the company claims that she was told to speak with a higher up supervisor, but instead, left the plant without ever contacting the company again.  The dispute centered completely on what was said at the final meeting between the employee and the manager on duty.

The manager on duty did not attend the hearing.  Instead, two employees who were not at the plant on Ms. Parham’s last date testified that she had been instructed to call the department supervisor, but instead walked out.  Their testimony was not based on personal knowledge, nor was it apparently based on discussions with the manager on duty.  Hearsay testimony, in which one person reports on what someone else says and offers it for the truth of the report, is allowed in unemployment hearings.  On the other hand, the hearsay testimony must give some indication that it’s reliable.  Mid-Atlantic failed to convince the court that its hearsay testimony, which contradicted both Ms. Parman’s testimony and the document indicating her termination, was not reliable enough to uphold the denial of benefits.

In litigation, companies often produce after-the-fact explanations of an employee’s departure.  This comes up frequently in discrimination cases, in which the reason for a termination is discriminatory bias or some legal explanation focusing on the employee’s faults.  To buttress its case, Mid-Atlantic should have brought the manager on duty as its witness, since she had personal knowledge of the discussion.   By leaving her out of the loop, Mid-Atlantic produced insufficiently strong evidence to support its version of the facts.

Congress and Maryland have been gradually increasing the number of weeks of benefits allowed, in the context of the lingering recession and the unemployment rate at 10%, according to the latest statistics, but topping that in many places.

This morning’s New York Times reported that we may not see the pattern in former recessions, where unemployment continued to rise even as the economy climbed back.

Still, it could be awhile before the unemployment rate drifts back down to 4 or 5%.  Maryland now has increased the maximum weekly benefit, which is now $410.  This rate applies to employees who formerly earned from $9,816 per calendar quarter and up.  For many people that is a major comedown from their former salaries, but this benefit is necessary for many people to survive.  The schedule of benefits can be found here.