Michigan unemployment benefits hearings
📘 I. Overview of Michigan Unemployment Benefits Hearings
In Michigan, if your application for unemployment benefits is denied or challenged by your employer, you have the right to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules (MOAHR).
The process typically follows these steps:
Initial Determination: The Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) decides your eligibility.
Protest/Redetermination: Either party may protest within 30 days.
Hearing Request: If the redetermination is unfavorable, you may request a hearing before an ALJ.
ALJ Hearing: A formal hearing where both parties can present evidence and testimony.
ALJ Decision: The judge issues a written decision.
Appeal to Michigan Employment Security Board of Review and possibly to the Michigan Court of Appeals thereafter.
The main legal issues in these hearings often involve:
Voluntary quit vs. discharge
Misconduct
Availability for work
Refusal of suitable work
Eligibility due to other disqualifying factors (e.g., incarceration, self-employment, etc.)
📚 II. Detailed Explanation with Case Law
Below are six important Michigan cases that illustrate how unemployment law is interpreted and applied:
1. Carter v. Michigan Employment Security Commission, 364 Mich. 538 (1961)
Key Issue: Voluntary Quit vs. Involuntary Separation
Facts: The claimant quit his job due to persistent harassment and poor working conditions.
Ruling: The Michigan Supreme Court held that a voluntary quit is not disqualifying if the resignation is due to good cause attributable to the employer.
Significance: This case establishes that a person who quits may still receive benefits if they prove that the work environment was so intolerable that a reasonable person would have resigned.
✅ Good cause = objective and attributable to the employer
2. Michigan Employment Security Commission v. Vulcan Forging Co., 42 Mich. App. 714 (1972)
Key Issue: Discharge for Misconduct
Facts: A worker was discharged for repeated tardiness.
Ruling: The Court of Appeals ruled that misconduct must involve willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests, not just poor performance or inefficiency.
Significance: This case clarified that misconduct must involve intentional or negligent behavior, not just poor attendance without intent to harm the employer.
✅ Simple negligence or inefficiency ≠ misconduct
3. Detroit Auto Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Employment Security Commission, 356 Mich. 488 (1959)
Key Issue: Burden of Proof in Misconduct Cases
Ruling: The Michigan Supreme Court stated that the employer bears the burden of proving misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
Significance: This case is critical in reinforcing that claimants do not have to prove innocence—the employer must provide sufficient evidence of misconduct.
✅ Burden is on the employer
4. Laya v. Cebar Construction Co., 101 Mich. App. 26 (1980)
Key Issue: Eligibility and Willingness to Work
Facts: The claimant refused job offers that were similar to previous employment but at a lower wage.
Ruling: The Court held that a claimant is not automatically disqualified for refusing a job if it pays substantially less than prior wages, especially early in the unemployment period.
Significance: There’s a "suitability" standard—you’re not expected to accept just any job, particularly if it’s significantly below your skills or pay history.
✅ Refusing unsuitable work = allowed in some cases
5. Mercy Hospital v. Employment Security Commission, 100 Mich. App. 283 (1980)
Key Issue: Availability for Work
Facts: A nurse who restricted the type of shifts she would accept (e.g., refused night shifts) was denied benefits.
Ruling: The Court found that because the claimant had voluntarily restricted her availability, she was not truly available for full-time work.
Significance: A person must be reasonably available for work, which includes being flexible about hours, unless they can show good cause (e.g., health or childcare).
✅ Restricted availability = disqualification
6. Lawrence Baking Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 308 Mich. 198 (1944)
Key Issue: Definition of Misconduct
Ruling: The Michigan Supreme Court adopted the definition of "misconduct" from the Wisconsin case Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, which is often cited in unemployment law nationally.
Misconduct is: “a willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests, or of the standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of employees.”
Significance: This is the foundational case for defining misconduct in Michigan unemployment law.
✅ Misconduct = willful disregard of employer interests
🧾 III. Practical Takeaways for Hearings
Here’s how these cases impact real unemployment hearings:
| Legal Question | Case(s) | Outcome if Proven |
|---|---|---|
| Did you quit voluntarily with good cause? | Carter | Benefits allowed if caused by employer |
| Were you fired for misconduct? | Vulcan Forging, Lawrence Baking | No benefits if employer proves willful misconduct |
| Who has the burden of proof? | Detroit Auto Inter-Insurance | Employer must prove misconduct |
| Did you refuse suitable work? | Laya | Not disqualified if job was unsuitable |
| Are you available for full-time work? | Mercy Hospital | Must be reasonably available |
⚖️ IV. Additional Notes
Hearsay is admissible in UI hearings but given less weight unless corroborated.
Claimants and employers can subpoena witnesses.
The ALJ may question witnesses directly.
Failure to attend hearings can result in default.
✅ Summary
Unemployment benefit hearings in Michigan are governed by administrative law principles, but they are heavily influenced by prior case law, especially in areas like misconduct, voluntary quit, and availability for work.
Key Legal Principles:
Misconduct must be intentional.
Good cause to quit must be employer-related.
Burden of proof is on the employer.
Availability must be real and demonstrable.
Suitability of alternative work is judged reasonably.
RELATED Blog
0 comments