All employees who are terminated are presumed to qualify for unemployment benefits through the Employment Development Department or “EDD”. Because of this presumption, it was once common for employees to be readily granted unemployment benefits, even in the case of “for cause” terminations. That has now changed, and following a series of scandals the politically motivated EDD is aggressively denying unemployment benefits when given the weakest excuse for doing so. This means that employees who should readily receive unemployment benefits are being denied and must file a formal appeal to fight back against their former employer and against America’s worst run State-level bureaucracy.

This article discusses one of the common reasons given by the EDD for denial of unemployment benefits: that the employee broke a reasonable employer rule (22 Cal.Code.Regs. § 1256-42).

What is misconduct for purposes of the EDD?

For background, employees are entitled to unemployment benefits if they lose work through no fault of their own. This means that employees who voluntarily quit or who are fired for misconduct do not get benefits (Unemployment Insurance Code § 1256). For EDD purposes, misconduct does not automatically exist simply because the employee was fired for cause. Misconduct has to be intentionally bad behavior that threatens or damages the employer in a material or substantial way (22 Cal.Code.Regs § 1256-30 (b). A technical violation is not enough.

What does violation of a reasonable employer rule mean?

That the employee broke a reasonable employer rule is just one of many forms of employee misconduct that can disqualify the employee from receiving benefits. To establish that the employee violated a reasonable employer rule and cannot be awarded benefits, the EDD must establish all of the following:

The employee’s behavior actually violated the rule: Oftentimes, employers will terminate an employee alleging misconduct, despite clear evidence showing that the employee was just doing their job. An employee’s conduct must have actually violated some rule to be denied EDD benefits. If the employer was simply mistaken or has exaggerated what actually occurred, this can be the best way to win an EDD appeal.
The rule is reasonable: Assuming the underlying conduct actually violated a rule, the EDD must find that the employer rule is reasonable. This means that the employer rule cannot violate the law, that the rule is more than a mere technicality, and that it must be feasible for the employee to adhere to the rule in the first place.
That the employee knew or should have known about the rule: If the employer failed to inform the employee of the rule in the first place, misconduct cannot be found.
The violation is willful or wanton: This means that the employee acted in more than a negligent way when violating the rule. While even some accidents could be considered “willful” the EDD will have to find that the employee made a conscious decision to disregard a rule which led to the accident. Simply being an inefficient or poorly performing employee is not enough to show “willful or wanton” behavior.
That the violation is material: This means that the violation of the rule was more than a mere technicality, but a serious rule that substantively mattered.
That the violation substantially injures or tends to injure the employer: This means that the violation of the underlying rule actually harmed the employer or that the violation could have harmed the employer even if no harm occurred. Rule violations that could not have possibly harmed anyone cannot be the cause of a denial of benefits.

How to disprove violation of an employer rule at an EDD Appeal:

If your EDD benefits have been denied for violating an employer rule, you as the employee will want to provide facts showing that no such misconduct occurred. This is done through the testimony of the employee herself, through documents, or through the testimony of witnesses. While each case is different, the following sources of evidence can help disprove violation of a reasonable employer rule:

Job descriptions: The job description can be helpful to the employee if it shows that the employee was authorized to engage in the underlying conduct alleged to be problematic by the employer or the EDD.
Authorization from supervisors/ bosses: If the employee’s boss authorized the underlying employee conduct, has tolerated the same conduct from other employees, or has engaged in the conduct themselves, this can disprove violation of a reasonable employer rule.
Selective rule enforcement: If the alleged conduct that violated the rule is tolerated by the employer from some employees, but not others, this too can disprove employee misconduct. A “reasonable rule” that is “materially violated” should lead to employee discipline every single time.
Performance history: Although more serious rule violations could constitute misconduct upon the first violation, it is helpful to show that the employee was a positively performing employee with an absence of prior warnings about the underlying violation.
Employee-intentions: Because only “willful or wanton” behavior can be the basis of misconduct, the employee’s subjective intentions and the reasons for the underlying violation are important. If the underlying rule violation was accidental, or if the circumstances leading to the violation were out of the employee’s control, this should be brought to the EDD’s attention at the appeal.

Have you been denied your unemployment benefits? Thousands of dollars could be on the line. Contact the Law Office of Brian Mathias for more information.