Unemployment Benefits for restrictions not met by the employer

funkysan

In Ohio we found that if an associate is with child and the Doctor puts her on some type of restrictions which prevent her from doing her job she can receive unemployment benefits. Are other companies experiencing this or do they find something for the associate to do even if it is minimal? We have a number of women with child and if this cathes on it could affect our premium rate. What are othe folks doing?

Down_the_Middle

This is a very common situation in healthcare with 98% female population and we almost always try to determine what the employee CAN do and then offer a light duty situation to enable the person to continue working. Treating this persons "disability" the same as any other non-pregnancy disability will ensure that you're focusing on the physical restrictions and not the actual illness.

Gillian

The reason that your employee will receive unemployment benefits is that the laws are written, on purpose, to be liberal in the payment of benefits. The writers of the laws understood that employees need a safety net, otherwise they might be on welfare or in some other way become a state responsibility. This is a little bit of speculation but the claim reviewer probably thinks that the reason the person is not working is because the employer is not providing accomodation (thus the unemployment is not her fault) rather than the pregnancy.

Looking at it from the intent of the unemployment benefit laws makes it a little easier to understand although sometimes we grumble because we think that they are being applied too liberally.