Alasri v MESC – 8.02

Alasri v MESC
Digest no. 8.02

Section 32

Cite as: Alasri v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued March 13, 1984 (Docket No. TRA81 10471 79796).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ali M. Alasri
Employer: Chrysler Corporation
Docket no.:
Date of decision: March 13, 1984

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The MESC is not required to provide an illiterate claimant with verbal instructions about the filing process or an interpreter where the Commission was not aware of the illiteracy problem.

FACTS: A claimant of Arabic background who did not read English well was late in filing for TRA training benefits. Notification of the training benefits program was mailed to the claimant.

DECISION: Denial of training benefits was affirmed.

RATIONALE: “Plaintiff has produced no evidence that the MESC was aware of his illiteracy at the time the notice was sent. We therefore concluded that the responsibility for translating the notice rested with plaintiff, who should have acted in some way to inform himself of its contents.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 12/91

Wambaugh v Harvey Home – 8.03

Wambaugh v Harvey Home
Digest no. 8.03

Sections 28(1)(a), 32

Cite as: Wambaugh v Harvey Home, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued September 29, 1980 (Docket No. B79 05675 68029).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Margie M. Wambaugh
Employer: Harvey Home
Docket no.: B79 05675 68029
Date of decision: September 29, 1980

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: The period of ineligibility for failing, without good cause, to report to a Commission office as scheduled on a continued claim, is limited to weeks preceding the week of the appointment.

FACTS: Claimant had an on-going (continued) unemployment benefits claim. She reported to an MESC branch office to certify as to her eligibility on January 9, 1979. She was given a next appointment date of January 23, 1979 but for various reasons did not report on that date or until February 9, 1979. The MESC held her ineligible for the four week period from January 7, 1979 – February 3, 1979, including the two preceding weeks ending January 13 and 20 for which she could have certified on January 23 and the subsequent two weeks because by failing to report she did not “establish the effective date of the next succeeding benefit period.”

DECISION: Claimant is not ineligible pursuant to the reporting requirements of Sections 28 and 32 because the Board found claimant had good cause for failing to report. (Editor’s Note: Although in light of that finding the Board’s holding may appear to be dicta, various panels of the Board have since repeatedly followed the principle of Wambaugh.)

RATIONALE: MESC Rule 210(9) “is arbitrary and capricious….

The second function, that of establishment of the effective date of the next succeeding benefit period as a condition to the entitlement for benefits for such succeeding period, is meaningless. For example, the elements of eligibility for benefits can always (and only) be established at the conclusion of the week or weeks in question. Therefore, we hold that an individual who misses a bi-weekly reporting datewithout good cause shall forfeit only his entitlement to the prior two weeks of benefits, that is “the completed week or weeks of unemployment” referred to in Rule 210(9).”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 12/91