Camacho v. Bowling
| Decision Date | 08 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 78 C 770.,78 C 770. |
| Citation | 562 F. Supp. 1012 |
| Parties | Carmen CAMACHO and Steven Flowers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. William M. BOWLING, Director, Illinois Department of Labor; C. Thompson Ross, Administrator of Bureau of Unemployment Security; Agaliece Miller, Commissioner of Division of Unemployment Insurance; Sachtleben, Chief of the Appeals Section; Illinois Department of Labor, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Alan Gilbert, Legal Assistance Foundation, Joanne Kinoy, Northwest Legal Services, Stephen Lythcott, Lawndale Legal Services, Helen Cropper, Legal Assistant Foundation, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Moshe Jacobius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Before the court is a civil rights class action which challenges the practices of the State of Illinois in its administration of unemployment insurance benefits. The plaintiffs claim that the Illinois Department of Labor has a practice of raising issues at the administrative appeals hearing which were not appealed from and for which claimants received no notice. The plaintiffs contend that this practice violates Section 303(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(3), and deprives the plaintiffs of property (unemployment benefits) without the due process of law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A bench trial of the liability issue1 was conducted on May 4, 1982. For the reasons stated herein, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff class.2
Jurisdiction of the court is properly invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343. This opinion constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.
Title III of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 501 et seq., established the Unemployment Compensation program. The program is administered and implemented through state governmental bodies. The Illinois program operates under the guidelines found in the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 48 §§ 300 et seq., (1981). Under the Act, the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor is responsible for administering the Illinois Unemployment Insurance System. The procedures generally followed in administering the program are as follows.
Under the system as it is presently structured, applicants for unemployment insurance benefits must appear personally at the local unemployment office to apply for benefits. At the time of this initial application, each claimant completes an application form and then receives a benefits right interview.
During the interview, a state employee will explain the eligibility requirements to the claimant. Among the requirements discussed is the requirement that the claimant be able to work, be available for work, and be actively seeking work.3 This requirement is generally referred to as the "A & A" requirement.
At the interview, which is conducted either one-on-one or in groups with the aid of audio visual equipment, the claimants also receive a booklet entitled "You and the Facts About Unemployment Insurance." The booklet, 32 pages in length, makes these disclosures about the A & A requirement:
The booklet also informs the claimant of other relevant rules including potential grounds for disqualification, procedures for appeal of adverse rulings, and amount of benefits to which a person may be entitled.
After the claimant completes the application, the agency hands the claimant a "Ben-437 form." The form, entitled "IMPORTANT NOTICE," again reiterates the significance of the A & A requirement. The form, in full, provides:
Unless the claimant is exempt, the Local Office will instruct the claimant to register with the Illinois Job Service. Registration with the local employment service office is also a prerequisite to eligibility for benefits.
After the interview, the claimant is mailed form "BIS 653". (See Appendix 1)4. The form covers a two week period. In completing the form, the claimant certifies that he was available and looking for work. The form asks the claimant to list in detail the potential employers contacted, the date of contact, the person contacted, the method of contact, the type of work sought, and the results of the contact. After the local office mails the BIS 653 to the claimant, it begins to process the claimant's application.
The local office will review the completed application to determine whether the claimant is eligible for benefits. If this preliminary examination indicates eligibility, the local office mails a notice of the claim to the claimant's former employer. The employer is entitled to object to the claim if it believes the applicant is ineligible. If there is an employer objection, the claimant will be summoned back to the local office and the objection will be discussed with a claim's adjudicator.
If there is no objection, the claimant is authorized to receive up to 26 weeks of unemployment compensation provided that the claimant continues to satisfy all eligibility requirements.
The local office also monitors eligible claimants to be sure that they continue to satisfy all requirements. This continuing review is achieved primarily through the BIS 653 form. Every two weeks, the claimant files a new BIS 653 that certifies continuing eligibility and documents in detail the claimant's availability for work and efforts to find work during the two week period covered by the form.
If local office personnel question the accuracy or sufficiency of the information on the form, the office instructs the claimant to report to the office for an interview with a claims adjudicator. The office may also, in some circumstances, schedule periodic interviews with a particular claimant.
At the follow up interviews, the claims adjudicator will insure that the office's files are current and that the information contained therein is accurate. The claims adjudicator will also inquire into the claimant's continuing satisfaction of the A & A requirement.
The claims adjudicator will then decide whether the claimant is still eligible for benefits. The decision is rendered in writing, setting forth the basis of the decision. The written determination also informs the party of the right to appeal the decision to a referee. Either the claimant or an employer is entitled to appeal an adverse ruling.
A party also has a right to request the claims adjudicator to reconsider his decision before the claimant brings the appeal. Where reconsideration is requested, the claims adjudicator again gives written reasons for his ruling. Either the claimant or an employer may appeal an adverse reconsideration ruling.
An adverse ruling by the claims adjudicator at any stage of the application process may be appealed.
The appeals process begins with notice to the claimant of the right to appeal. The claims adjudicator's written determination contains standardized language which informs the party that they "may file an appeal, in person or by mail." The time limits for filing an appeal are stated. The written determination also informs the party that he will have the opportunity to present evidence at the appeal.
The claimant is also instructed to report to the local office on the claimant's regular report day and to continue to file the biweekly BIS 653 forms during the pendency of the appeal.
After the local office receives the notice of appeal, it sets a hearing date and notifies the claimant of the date by mail.
At the appeal the referee will conduct a hearing which first addresses the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cosby v. Ward
...'fair hearing' requirement has been met is tested by the same standards as constitutional procedural due process." Camacho v. Bowling, 562 F.Supp. 1012, 1020 (N.D.Ill.1983) (citing Ross v. Horn, 598 F.2d 1312, 1318 n. 4 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 906, 100 S.Ct. 3048, 65 L.Ed.2d 1......
-
Doston v. Duffy
...(E.D.Pa.1984); David v. Heckler, 591 F.Supp. 1033 (E.D.N. Y.1984); Dealy v. Heckler, 616 F.Supp. 880 (W.D.Mo.1984); Camacho v. Bowling, 562 F.Supp. 1012 (N.D.Ill.1983). 20. DPA 157NC must be modified to meet the standards of due Delay 21. The Social Security Act at 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(10) an......
-
Brewer v. Cantrell
...held to be a constitutionally protected property right by some courts. See Ross v. Horn, 598 F.2d 1312 (3rd Cir.1979), Camacho v. Bowling, 562 F.Supp. 1012 (N.D.Ill.1983). "Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are d......
-
U.S. v. Bank of New England, N.A., 86-1334
...States, 262 F.2d 245, 250 (8th Cir.1958); Inland Freight Lines v. United States, 191 F.2d 313, 315 (10th Cir.1951); Camacho v. Bowling, 562 F.Supp. 1012, 1025 (N.D.Ill.1983); United States v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc., 381 F.Supp. 730, 738-39 (W.D.W.Va.1974); United States v. Sawyer Transport, In......