[wiaattorneys] FW: Re: TRA Income Assistance

  • From: "Pomerantz, Jane C. (GC-LI)" <jpomerantz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:27:06 -0500

Paul cited a PA case but the case did not really rule on that issue.
This was a very complicated case of claimants who applied for benefits
about 7-20 years after certification.  They were trying to get claims
under old petitions when DOL would not certify the plant under its
latest closure.  If you have nothing to do and are feeling masochistic
read this case.  However, you will never feel the amount of pain we went
through dealing with hundreds claims in this case only. But it was not
the only case.  There were several other cases which dealt with almost
3000 claimants at the same time.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sauder, Lisa M. (GC-LI) 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:48 AM
To: Pomerantz, Jane C. (GC-LI)
Subject: RE: [wiaattorneys] Re: TRA Income Assistance

That cite is to the Mateosky case.  I didn't recall that the case ruled
on equitable estoppel, so I re-read the decision.  Here's what it says:
The Claimants also advance an argument of equitable estoppel, citing the
Sixth Circuit's opinion in Dole. In Dole, Michigan authorities
instructed laid-off General Motors workers to file their TAA claims just
before the expiration of their state UI benefits. As a result of that
advice, the workers applied for training after the 210-day limitation
period, rendering them ineligible for additional TRA. Applying a
Michigan Employment Security Commission rule recognizing good cause for
late filing of a claim, the court granted the claimants a waiver for
good cause and remanded the case.

The Dole opinion is distinguishable from the instant case for a number
of reasons. Unlike the Claimants in the instant case, the claimants in
Dole were applying for benefits with respect to separations that
occurred within the applicable certification period.  [*904]  Second,
there is no indication that the claimants in Dole had returned to work
for a period of years, resulting in their no longer being adversely
affected. Third, in the instant case, a waiver of the 210-day limitation
would not entitle the Claimants to additional TRA.

Finally, even if the Claimants had applied for training [**16]  within
the 210-day limitation period, they would not be entitled to additional
TRA because they were not entitled to basic TRA. Additional TRA is
nothing more than an extension of basic TRA predicated on the claimant's
continuing enrollment in training. The eligibility period for additional
TRA is the 26-week period following the eligibility period for basic
TRA. Based on the eligibility periods determined above for basic TRA,
the Claimants' 26-week eligibility periods would have begun to run
either on September 26, 1987 or on September 24, 1989 (for the 1985 and
1987 certifications, respectively).

So, I still don't think there's a PA Trade Act case on equitable
estoppel, that I can recall, anyway.  There is a PA UC case supporting
equitable estoppel, but that would be different.

Lisa M. Sauder 
Assistant Counsel 
10th Floor, Labor & Industry Building 
Harrisburg, PA  17121 
(717) 787-4186 
(717) 772-1655 (fax) 

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Pomerantz, Jane C. (GC-LI) 
        Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:11 AM
        To: Sauder, Lisa M. (GC-LI)
        Subject: FW: [wiaattorneys] Re: TRA Income Assistance
        -----Original Message-----
        From: wiaattorneys-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wiaattorneys-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mason, Paul
        Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 4:19 PM
        To: 'jalbin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
        Cc: 'wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
        Subject: [wiaattorneys] Re: TRA Income Assistance

        John - There is one Pennsylvania case (695 A.2d 898) and two
Ohio cases that held there is no equitable estoppel. We almost had a
case that made it to the Appellate Division in New York. 



        From: John Albin [mailto:jalbin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:53 PM
        To: wiaattorneys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [wiaattorneys] TRA Income Assistance


        Our Appeal Tribunal recently affirmed a Claim's Deputy's
determination that an individual was not eligible for TRA income
assistance even though the Deputy conceded that the Department had
apparently failed to notify her of her eligibility and the application
deadline as we are required to do. The claimant has appealed the Appeal
Tribunal decision to District Court. The Claimant is basically arguing
that the Department is equitably estopped from denying her benefits
because the Department failed to notify her of her eligibility and the
deadline for seeking TRA income assistance. The Claimant's attorney
suggests that there is a case out of Oregon that supports the claimant's
position, although I haven't seen it yet. Are you aware of any cases,
whether out of Oregon or any other state involving this sort of issue?
Thanks for your help. 
        John H. Albin
        Agency Legal Counsel
        Nebraska Workforce Development
        Department of Labor
        550 S. 16th St.
        P.O. Box 94600
        Lincoln, NE 68509-4600
        tel. 402-471-9912
        fax 402-471-9917

Other related posts:

  • » [wiaattorneys] FW: Re: TRA Income Assistance