After our client was terminated for absences due to a bona fide medical reason, she found herself denied unemployment compensation. Through a hearing, we showed that the vast majority of the absences were due to a bona fide medical reason, and as a result, she was not at fault. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved her benefits.

Due to restructuring at the employer, our client found her position eliminated. ODJFS denied her benefits; however, because she was offered two alternative positions. We showed the hearing officer that neither alternative position was suitable because one was two-hours away and the other involved a substantial reduction in pay. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed with us that our client was eligible for benefits.

With no prior warnings about any work performance issues, our client found herself terminated for, "not being a good fit." She applied for unemployment and was denied until we represented her through a hearing and obtained a decision in her favor. The Hearing Officer concluded, after giving credibility to our client's testimony, that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. As a result, her benefits were approved.

After being placed on an performance improvement plan, our client was told that he was being terminated unless he resigned instead. He resigned, but found himself denied unemployment benefits due to the resignation. We showed the hearing officer that the resignation was in lieu of an impending termination, and therefore the question for the hearing officer was not whether he had just cause to resign, but rather whether the employer had just cause to terminated. The hearing officer agreed that they did not, and as a result his benefits were approved.

After receiving benefits for months, the PUA denied our client, claiming he did not provide sufficient employment verification. We represented him through a hearing, prevailed, eliminated his overpayment, and obtained a backpayment for him.

After being stopped for having a license plate light out, our client found herself subjected to field sobriety tests, placed under arrest, given a breath test, and charged with an OVI. As a result of our representation, the OVI charge was dismissed.

Our client was stopped for a marked lanes violation. Rather than simply issuing a citation, the police expanded and prolonged the traffic stop to investigate a suspected OVI based solely on our client's bloodshot eyes. We raised arguments with respect to whether this was sufficient cause to expand and prolong the determination while we also challenge breath test results based on the maintenance and calibration of the breath test machine. As a result, the OVI charges were dismissed.

Our client was denied PUA benefits after the PUA system determined he did not provide sufficient employment verification. Through a hearing, we showed sufficient verification through check stubs, tax returns, W-2s, and other documents. As a result, his benefits were approved and his overpayment was eliminated.

After receiving PUA benefits for months, our client was denied because the PUA system claimed he did not provide sufficient employment verification. We prevailed, showing a hearing officer sufficient employment verification. As a result, his overpayment was eliminated and his benefits were approved.

After our client was involved in an auto accident, he found himself arrested and charged with an OVI. He also provided a urine sample to evaluate. The OVI was ultimately dismissed and our client received only a non-moving citation instead.

School employees are generally not eligible for unemployment through the summers based on their school employment if they have a reasonable assurance of employment in the fall. Our client's contract came to an end. Though the employer told him he may be able to apply for another position in the Fall, it did not give him a reasonable assurance. Thus, the Hearing Officer agreed to approve his benefits through the summer.

Our client received what is called SUB unemployment from her employer. A Supplemental Unemployment Benefit ("SUB") is a plan by an employer that subsidizes unemployment benefits. ODJFS incorrectly determined that this was deductible income. Despite attempts by our client to appeal this determination, ODJFS also determined that she appealed late. Through a hearing, we showed that the SUB unemployment benefits were not deductible, and should not have reduced her weekly unemployment benefit. Further, because State of Ohio Amended Substitution House Bill No. 197 (Am Sub. H.B. No. 197) tolled "any other criminal, civil or administrative time limitation under the Revised Code ... set to expire between March 9, 2020, and July 30, 2020," her July 15 appeal of the May determination was still timely. As a result, she was approved for her unemployment compensation.

After being terminated from her job, our client found her employer raising many issues with unemployment to justify the termination even though they never shared those reasons with her. We showed the Hearing Officer that the employer could not bring up reasons that were not given at the time of termination, that our client had no prior discipline, and the employer failed to provide any witnesses with personal knowledge of the allegations. As a result, our client won her appeal and was approved for benefits.

After paying benefits to our client for months, the PUA issued a determination notice denying her benefits and demanding she pay back the benefits she already received. We represented her through a telephone hearing, obtaining and analyzing her file, verifying documentation was included, and presented legal arguments to the Hearing Officer that the PUA was wrong to deny her. The Hearing Officer agreed, reversing the denial of benefits and eliminating the overpayment.

After being pulled over for having a headlight out, our client found himself being asked to submit to field sobriety tests, arrested, and providing a urine sample. The state, however, failed to provide the urine test results until five days before the trail. After motions to compel and motions to exclude evidence of the late urine test and other evidence, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI. This saved our client from an OVI conviction on his record, six points to his driving record and a year-long minimum license suspension.

As a general rule, if claimant enrolls in school after becoming unemployed, they will be denied benefits for being "unavailable" for work. However, if the claimant was attending school while they were working, the schooling should not disqualify them from benefits. Our client, however, found ODJFS asking for a large overpayment after determining he was unavailable due to attending school. During a hearing, we showed the Hearing Officer that he attended school while he was working, and as a result the Hearing Officer agreed that he was eligible for benefits and eliminated the overpayment.

After experiencing a flat tire, our client found the police arrive to put him through field sobriety tests and have him submit to a breath test that resulted in a high reading. Facing a mandatory minimum of twenty-days of jail for a second-in-ten OVI, he contacted us for help. In addition to arguing his case, we showed that the prior OVI was from another state and Ohio could not show it was an actual DUI conviction. As a result, our client avoided a second-in-ten OVI and any jail time.

Our client received PUA benefits for several months when she received determination notices that (a) denied her benefits for failing to respond to an department inquiry, and (b) deducted from the benefits she received a pension benefit from an employer she worked at several years earlier. The Hearing Officer found in our favor on both points. First, he reasoned that there is no statutory authority for imposing a suspension of benefits for failing to respond to a department inquiry. Second, pension benefits are only deductible if from a base period employer. Our client's base period was 2019, but she last worked at the employer who contributed to the pension several years prior, and therefore was not deductible.

Our client was put on a performance improvement plan that ended in December 2020. Despite successfully completing the plan, she was terminated in February 2021. The employer told her that she could apply for other positions. OJDFS denied her benefits, holding that she was terminated with just cause and turned down an offer of suitable work when she did not apply for other positions. During a hearing, we showed that the employer lacked any just cause to terminate her. Further, the employer's suggestion that she apply for other positions was not an offer of work at all. As a result, she was approved for benefits.

Our client applied for and received PUA benefits for months, only to then receive a determination notice that stated he was overpaid for failing to provide documentation timely. We proceeded through appeals and a telephone hearing, showing the Hearing Officer that he did provide the documentation. As a result, the Hearing Officer found in his favor and eliminated his overpayment.

Ohio's PUA system attempted to deduct our client's pension amount from his weekly benefits. Through a telephone hearing, we showed the hearing officer that a pension should only be deductible if it is received from an employer for whom the claimant worked and received remuneration during their base period. The pension our client received was from an employer he worked for approximately six years prior to applying for benefits, and therefore was not deductible from his weekly benefits.

Our client was denied benefits, after months of receiving them, because the PUA system claimed that he had not provided sufficient employment verification. Through a telephone hearing, we showed that he had in fact provided sufficient documentation and as a result, his overpayment was eliminated and he was approved for benefits.

Our client was absent from work due to bona fide medical reasons. When she returned to work, she properly provided medical documentation, but the employer terminated her for absences. We represented her through a hearing, where the employer attempted to give other excuses for the termination. However, the Hearing Officer agreed with us that the employer terminated her for an absence due to a bona fide medical reason, and this was without just cause.

After our client was charged with an OVI, we obtained a copy of the police reports and videos that showed very few signs of impairment. We used this evidence to push forward in obtaining a dismissal of the OVI charges.

Our client faced a disqualification of his CDL after being charged with an OVI. Through aggressive representation, we achieved a dismissal of his OVI charges and resolved the case with no license suspension and no loss of his CDL.

Our client applied for and was approved for unemployment compensation after his job came to an end due to a lack to work. When his regular benefits ended and he applied for an extension, ODJFS retroactively denied all benefits that were paid to him. Through a Hearing, we were able to show that the initial determination became final, that ODJFS did not have jurisdiction to change a final decision, and as a result his overpayment was eliminated.

Our client was on a leave of absence for a medical reason when his employment came to an end. ODJFS denied his claim for benefits, claiming he was on a voluntary leave of absence. We showed that he was on a leave of absence, but (a) that ended when he was terminated and (b) he was able to work shortly after he was terminated. As a result, the Hearing Officer agreed that he was eligible for benefits once released to work.

Our client had a meeting with upper management at his employer where he voiced several concerns about his employment. The parties did not reach an agreement regarding some important issues and, out of despair, our client told management that they may need to start looking for his replacement. The employer considered this as a termination, and as a result, he was denied unemployment benefits. Through a hearing, we showed he did not resign. As a result, his benefits were approved.

Our client applied for unemployment benefits after his hours were reduced. Months later, a determination notice was issued denying benefits, stating that he voluntarily reduced the hours. We showed the Hearing Officer that this was not accurate. Rather, his hours were reduced by the employer. As a result, he won the hearing and eliminated a large overpayment.

Our client carried a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) for work. CDL's are disqualified for one-year after a first-time OVI and for life after a second-time OVI. When our client was charged with an OVI, we worked diligently with the prosecutor and court to obtain a dismissal of the OVI charges as well as getting his administrative license suspension vacated to save his job and CDL.

Our client was charged with an OVI after a traffic stop and refusing to take a breath test. By proceeding with great care, we were able to reach a dismissal of the OVI charge, saving our client from a year-long license suspension and high points to her license

Our client was initially denied unemployment compensation after resigning from his job. We showed ODJFS; however, that he only resigned in lieu of an impending discharge. Put simply, the employer told him that he was terminated but gave him the option to sign a resignation letter instead. Because the resignation was in lieu of an impending discharge, the case should have been evaluated for whether the employer had just cause to terminate him, not whether he had just cause to resign. As a result, his unemployment was approved with a backpayment.

ODJFS denied unemployment compensation to our client, claiming the employer terminated him without just cause due to customer complaints. Through a hearing, we showed that the employer did not follow progressive discipline. Further, complaints are part of the customer service industry and not sufficient proof of misconduct by the employee. The Hearing Officer agreed, reversing the denial of benefits.

School employees typically do not receive unemployment compensation through summer breaks if they have a contract or reasonable assurance of employment at the beginning of the next academic year. Our client was denied benefits through the summer for this reason; however, we showed that he was a 12-month employee and should receive benefits through the summer because he suffered an unanticipated loss of income. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving his benefits.

Although our client was stopped for speeding and ultimately provided an over-the-limit breath test, we worked his case to the fullest extent possible to obtain an agreement to dismiss the charges with a plea to a non-moving citation instead. As a result, he was saved from points to his license and a year-long license suspension.

Our client sent a text message to her supervisor that was arguably unprofessional. However, it was an isolated incident and a minor one. Therefore, the Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. As a result, the unemployment hearing was won and our client was approved for unemployment compensation.

Our client was initially approved for unemployment compensation; however, the PUA later denied her benefits requiring repayment of a large overpayment. PUA claimed our client was not unemployed due to COVID. Through a hearing we showed that our client's cleaning business came to a halt upon COVID because clients were not willing to let her into their homes. As a result, we won the hearing and the overpayment was eliminated.

Our client was terminated after seven years of employment due to an allegation that she did not properly handle calls. Through a telephone hearing, we demonstrated that the employer could not show her actions represented sufficient fault or misconduct to deny her unemployment compensation benefits. As a result, her benefits were approved.

Our client was terminated for sending a message to a co-worker that complained about newly hired employees. Even though the newly hired employees did not see the message or complain about it, and the message simply stated, "These guys are weird," the employer terminated our client. While ODJFS denied her benefits for being terminated with just cause, through a hearing we prevailed by showing this type of discipline was disciplinary overkill. As a result, the Hearing Officer concluded the termination was without just cause and approved benefits.

ODJFS denied our client's benefits, erroneously believing the employer's claim that she turned down an offer to return to work. Through a hearing, we showed that the employer lacked any evidence of any communication about an offer to return to work. As a result, the Hearing Officer removed a large overpayment ODJFS claimed our client owed.

When a person receives a severance payment, even as a lump sum, OJDFS will allocate that payment out over a number of weeks as deductible income reducing a person's benefits unless the employer allocates a lump sum severance to one particular week. ODJFS allocated out our client's severance payment, but by working with our client and the employer, we were able to obtain documentation to prevent the allocation. A hearing officer agreed, approving our client's benefits.

To qualify for unemployment compensation, a person must have sufficient qualifying weeks of employment and income during their base period. Our client was denied benefits in part because ODJFS did not count disability payments she received from her employer as income. Through a hearing, we showed that such disability benefits do count as income, and as a result her unemployment benefits were approved.

Our client was charged with an OVI after submitting to both breath and urine tests. Through researching the discovery material from the State, proactive steps and negotiations with the prosecutor, and agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges saving our client from the strict OVI penalties and avoiding any license suspension

Our client quit his job, but upon further discussions with his employer returned to work completing the same job but listed as an independent contractor rather than an employee. When he was laid off from that job, he was disqualified for having originally quit the job. We showed the hearing officer that the work he did as an "independent contractor" should have been classified as employment, and therefore it was sufficient to requalify him for benefits. The Hearing Officer agreed, eliminated a large overpayment and approved him for benefits.

The employer placed our client on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) after alleged performance issues and then it subsequently terminated her. We showed the hearing officer that the employer lacked evidence of further performance issues after the PIP, and as a result she was approved for unemployment benefits.

Our client was terminated after an allegation that she did not properly assist with other hospital employees that were placing a patient in restraints. Through the hearing, we showed that the employer lacked reliable or credible evidence to support the allegations. As a result, her benefits were approved.

ODJFS denied benefits to our client after the employer alleged that she turned down additional work hours. Through the hearing, we showed that our client did not receive the offer, which was allegedly sent by email, and as a result her denial was reversed and she was approved for benefits.

Our client was charged with an OVI, for testing over the limit for THC metabolites, possession of marijuana, paraphernalia and speeding in a school zone. Through researching her case and analyzing the reports, video and testing results, we raised several legal arguments for her that lead to a dismissal of all of these charges, with her instead pleading to a non-moving violation. Her license suspension was also vacated.

Our client suffered from certain medical conditions that impaired his ability to perform his work. After a leave of absence, he resigned because there were no other positions available which conformed to his physical capabilities and no other positions were offered to him. He was able to perform less physical work, but ODJFS denied his claim explaining they believed he did not have just cause to resign. Through a hearing, we showed that he did have just cause to resign as a result of a bona fide medical condition, and as a result he was approved for benefits.

Our client was involved in an altercation at work after which he was terminated and the other employee kept their job. Through a hearing, we showed that our client was not the aggressor in the altercation and, as a result, the hearing officer approved his benefits.

Our client did not file her weekly claims for several weeks, and then she contacted ODJFS and re-opened her claim, having it backdated to the date she stopped filing claims. ODJFS accepted her weekly claims but denied her for not maintaining her registration. The Hearing Officer disagreed, concluding that we were correct - with the re-opened claim approved retroactively, she did meet the registration requirements. As a result, an overpayment was eliminated and an backpayment approved.

Our client was laid off and then offered an entirely different position to return to without sufficient time to consider the offer or discussion regarding what training she would receive for the new position. She turned down the offer and as a result ODJFS denied her benefits claiming show owed a large overpayment. Through a hearing, we showed the hearing officer that the offer was not a suitable one. As a result, the ovepayment was eliminated and she was eligible instead for a large backpayment.

The Ohio PUA system denied our client benefits because it claimed it did not provide sufficient employment and income verification. Through pursuing appeals, submitting documentation and representation through a hearing we prevailed. His overpayment was eliminated and he was approved for a backpayment instead.

Our client was pulled aside by a supervisor who proceeded to use profanity. Our client responded with some of her own profanity, and as a result she was terminated. A hearing officer agreed that, to terminate an employee with just cause for profanity, they should consider the severity of the profanity used; the provocation for the profanity; whether the profanity was isolated or part of a pattern; and whether other employees or customers were present. We showed that, in this case, while the profanity might have been severe, there was provocation, it was an isolated incident, and no other employees or customers were present. As a result, unemployment benefits were approved.

Our client was laid off from a job that claimed, nearly 1 1/2 years later, that she refused an offer to return to work. We appealed, showing that (a) she never received an offer to return to work; and (b) she had a COVID related reason for refusing any offer if it had been made. ODJFS agreed, approving her for benefits.

Our client was charged with an OVI after a traffic stop, standardized field sobriety tests, and refusing a breath test. Through extensive negotiations, we prevailed in obtaining a dismissal of the OVI charge with our client accepting a plea to a lesser citation and without the harsh penalties and effects of an OVI conviction.

Our client was charged with an OVI, and refused a breath test, after the police got involved because his vehicle was stuck off the side of the road. Through extensive negotiations and planning, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading to a non-moving citation instead.

Our client applied for and was approved for unemployment compensation. Nearly a year later, ODJFS issued determinations denying his benefits and claiming all that he was received was owed back as an overpayment. Through the hearing, we showed that the original determination became final and ODJFS did not have jurisdiction to reverse it a year later. The Hearing Officer agreed and our client prevailed.

Our client had medical conditions that placed him at high risk for COVID complications. He attempted to continue working, either by teleworking or under conditions with sufficient social distancing, but the employer was unable to provide this accommodations. As a result, our client resigned. Although he was at first denied unemployment, we worked with him to obtain medical documentation confirming his conditions and represented him through a hearing where we prevailed, showing the the hearing officer that he had good cause to resign. As a result, his benefits were approved and an large overpayment eliminated.

Our client was denied unemployment because ODJFS determined that he was not available for work. Through a hearing, we showed the Hearing Officer that, while our client preferred first-shift work, he was available for other work if offered to him. As a result, we prevailed at his hearing, eliminating a large overpayment, and securing a backpayment for him.

Our client experienced a medical condition that caused him to be absent. The employer terminated him; however, he had medical documentation verifying the reason for his absence. The Hearing Officer agreed with us, that his absence was due to a bona fide medical reason and that he was not at fault for the absence or the termination. As a result, his benefits were approved with a backpayment.

A police officer initiated a traffic stop after allegedly receiving a telephone call reporting an impaired driver. The traffic stop resulted an OVI charges that would have brought a mandatory one-year license suspension and the potential for jail time. However, we obtained a dismissal of the charges with our client pleading to another traffic offense. This avoided an OVI on his record and year-long license suspension.

Our client experienced a medical issue that prevented him from continuing to work at his employer. Prior to resigning, he notified the employer of the concern and gave the employer an adequate opportunity to resolve the issue. After it was not resolved, he resigned. He also obtained medical documentation to show that, while he was unable to work that job, he was able to work other jobs. Despite taking all of the right steps, he was denied unemployment benefits until we represented him through a hearing and prevailed - obtaining a win with backpayments for him.

Our client worked as a physical therapist. His employer terminated his employment claiming in part that some of his patients did to progress as much as expected. Through a telephone hearing, we demonstrated that the employer lacked any reliable evidence to support their allegations. As a result, the hearing officer agreed that the termination was without just cause. As a result, he was approved for his benefits with a backpayment.

Our client was charged with an OVI after a traffic stop and providing a breath test result that the police alleged to be .232, well over the legal limit. However, after extensive negotiations an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI, with our client agreeing to a non-moving citation instead, preventing a year-long license suspension and points to his driving record.

Our client was moved to a PRN position by her employer and then the employer stopped calling her in for work. She applied for unemployment but months later received a denial of benefits and notice of overpayment. We represented her through her hearing and showed the hearing officer that she was unemployed through no fault of her own. As a result, she won her hearing and the entire overpayment was eliminated.

Our client was charged with an OVI after failing field sobriety tests and refusing a breath test. However, through researching the reports and body cam, and through negotiations with the prosecutor, we achieved an agreement to dismiss the OVI in exchange for a plea to a non-moving violation with no license suspension, no points to her license, no jail, and no drivers intervention program.

Our client was hired for a job but never put into work. He was denied unemployment as being terminated without just cause. Through a hearing, he prevailed and the denial of his benefits was approved.

School employees typically do not receive unemployment compensation through the summers if they typically do not work through the summers and have a reasonable assurance of employment in the fall. Our client was denied benefits through the summer because it was concluded that she had such a reasonable assurance. We prevailed at her hearing, showing the hearing officer that she did not receive that assurance.

Our client worked through a temp agency that placed her with an employer. That employment opportunity came to an end, but she was denied unemployment compensation as a result of that employment ending. We showed the hearing officer that the real employer was the temporary agency, with whom she maintained employment though they did not have a place to send her to work. As a result, she was unemployed due to a lack of work and eligible for benefits.

By raising issues with respect to a traffic stop, we were able to reach an agreement that avoided an OVI charge or any alcohol related charge, which would have caused our client a great deal of concern with his military career and security clearances.

Our client was terminated from their job after several medically related absences. We showed the hearing officer that the absences were due to bona fide medical issues and through no fault of our client. As a result, she won her unemployment hearing and benefits were approved with a backpayment.

After raising several evidentiary issues, we were able to persuade the prosecutor and judge to agree to a dismissal of the charges with our client pleading to merely a minor misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $150.00, no license suspension, no jail, no probation, and no driver's intervention program.

We represented a woman who was terminated after the employer allegedly received customer complaints about her service. We showed unemployment, however, that the termination was without just cause because she had no prior discipline and the employer lacked evidence to substantiate the complaints. As a result, she was approved for benefits.

Our client had a clean work record when the employer told him they were ending his employment because things, "were not working out." When he applied for unemployment, they denied his benefits claiming he quit without just cause. Through a hearing, we showed that he was terminated and the termination was without just cause. As a result, his unemployment compensation was approved with a backpayment.

Our client had discussions with two employers while receiving unemployment compensation. ODJFS determined that he was denied benefits for turning down offers of suitable employment. We showed the hearing officer that the first job offer was for a job out of his field and at $10 less per hour than he had previously been receiving, and therefore was not an offer of suitable employment. We also showed the Hearing Officer that the discussions with the second job never led to an actual offer of employment. Therefore, his benefits were approved.

Our client was denied unemployment benefits in Ohio essentially because most of her income was from another state. We showed unemployment the amount of the income and verified her eligibility with the hearing officer. As a result, her benefits were approved.

Our client was denied unemployment compensation due to an allegation that she turned down an offer of suitable work. However, during the Hearing we showed that she never received an offer. She had some discussions with an potential employer about a potential position, but they never actually extended an offer. As a result, our client was approved for benefits.

Our client was terminated due to a general dissatisfaction with her work, according to the employer. However, through a hearing we showed that the large majority of the employer's concerns were due to reasons outside of the claimant's control. As a result, we won the hearing and benefits were approved.

Our client was charged with a third-in-ten OVI, which carries with it for a refusal case 60 days of jail, forfeiture of the vehicle, mandatory license suspension and high fines. However, by raising evidentiary issues regarding proof of his operating a vehicle and taking other proactive steps, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading to a non-moving citation instead.

Our client was charged with a violation of Revised Code 4549.02, a hit and skip statute, after an accident involving a fire hydrant and bushes. That statute, however, applies only to accidents on the road. Because it carries with it 4 points, a mandatory license suspension and the possibility of up to 6 months in jail, he chose to hire use to help protect himself. We addressed the issue that he was charged under the wrong statute through extensive negotiations and legal briefs. On the day of trial, we prevailed with our arguments and our client escaped this ordeal with a fine of $350, but no license suspension, no jail time and no probation.

Through extensive negotiations, we were able to obtain a dismissal of OVI charges against our client.

Despite having an over-the-limit test, we succeeded it getting OVI charges against our client dismissed on the first court date.

Our client was cited for an OVI when he tested over the legal limit during a traffic stop. Through extensive preparation and negotiations, we reached an agreement with the prosecutor to dismiss the OVI charges with a plea to a non-moving citation instead, which saved our client for a year-long license suspension, points to his license and the implications of an OVI conviction on future job opportunities.

Our client was absent from work due to a bona fide medical issue. The employer terminated her and unemployment denied her benefits, concluding that the employer had just cause to terminate based on the absences. We argued that fault is an essential element to prove just cause for a termination and an employee is not at fault when they have to be absent for a bona fide medical reason. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving our client for benefits, eliminating a large overpayment, and approving a backpayment of benefits.

To qualify for unemployment benefits, a person must be able to work during their weekly claims. Our client needed to resign from his job because he was not able to work that job, but he was able to work other less demanding jobs. Unemployment denied his benefits; however. Through a hearing, we showed that he was able to work and eligible, and the Hearing Officer agreed.

A bus driver at a local union we represent was placed on a suspension, and what is essentially a last chance agreement, when a pedestrian initiated a physical altercation with him. After being attacked, the driver let loose his frustration verbally - explaining how upset he was. We represented the union through an arbitration and persuaded the hearing officer that, while some of what the driver said was not appropriate, the discipline was overkill. The arbitrator agreed and sustained the grievance.

Our clients turned down an offer to return to work due to having high risk conditions for COVID, including being over age 65. Governor Dewine issued an executive order protecting people such as my clients, but that did not stop ODJFS from issuing a denial and demanding a large overpayment. We prevailed, however, showing that they were eligible for benefits. As a result the overpayments were eliminated and they were both issued a large backpayment instead.

Our client raised concerns about his hours with his boss, only to have his boss tell him to go home. When our client returned to work, he was told that they believed he resigned. He explained that he did not resign and never told anyone he resigned, but the employer would not let him work. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that this was a termination without just cause and approved his unemployment benefits.

Our client was charged with an OVI after being involved in an auto accident on slushy roads and testing over the legal limit. We raised arguments, pointing out that many clues of impairment were missing. As a result, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges.

After extensive preparation and negotiations in this case, on the morning of the trial, an agreement was reached from the State to dismiss the OVI charges against our client with him agreeing to plead to a non-moving citation instead.

Our client was was targeted with false allegations and discipline. After continued failed attempts to resolve the issues with his employer, and with concerns about the impact of discipline on a certification he was required to carry, he resigned. Through a telephone hearing, we showed the hearing officer that he had just cause to do so and as a result his unemployment benefits were approved.

Our client was charged as the result of driving under an administrative license from an OVI charge. Such a driving under an OVI suspension carries with it mandatory jail time, an additional license suspension and high fines. We showed the court that there were problems with the citation that was issued and argued that he should not have been placed under the license suspension to begin with. As a result, the prosecutor offered to dismiss the OVI charge and have our client agree to a minor misdemeanor charge with only at $100.00 fine. Our client and agreed and the case was resolved in his favor.

To qualify for unemployment benefits, a claimant must be able and available for work. Our client was denied because ODJFS concluded he did not make himself available for work. By representing him through a telephone hearing, we showed that he was available and eligible for benefits. The Hearing Officer agreed and awarded him benefits.

Despite the fact that the police obtained a breath test showing our client over the legal limit, though negotiations an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading instead to a non-moving citation.

Our client was initially approved for PUA benefits with a weekly benefit amount of $440 per week. Many months later he received a determination notice stating that he owed a large overpayment because they recalculated his weekly benefit amount to be only $189 per week. Through appeals and a telephone hearing we prevailed, showing that the "corrected determination" did not include all of his income when calculating his weekly benefit amount. As a result, a large overpayment was avoided.

Out client was subject to a two-week quarantine. ODJFS determined that she was not only unable to work during those two weeks, and therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation, but also for all weeks thereafter. Through a telephone hearing we persuaded the hearing officer that our client was able to work after the quarantine and eligible for benefits. The hearing officer agreed and awarded benefits.

Our client was denied unemployment benefits after suffering an injury because ODJFS claimed he was not able to work and therefore not eligible. We showed the hearing officer that the injury was only temporary and that he was able to work during his claims. As a result, his unemployment benefits were approved with a backpayment.

To qualify for unemployment, a person must be able and available to work. Our client experienced a medical issue while collecting unemployment that required a brief stay at a hospital. ODJFS not only denied her for the week she was in the hospital, but for all weeks after. Through a hearing, we showed that she was only unable to work one week and was entitled to benefits for all weeks after. As a result, an overpayment was removed and a backpayment was issued.

Our client applied for unemployment when she was separated from her employment. Two weeks after, she received a final paycheck from the employer. Nine (9) months later, ODJFS issued a determination denying benefits because she, "was not unemployed at the time of filing . . ." Through a telephone hearing, we showed that she was unemployed despite the final paycheck. While the paycheck was deductible income for the weeks in which she received it, she was entitled to benefits for all weeks thereafter. As a result, she was approved for unemployment compensation, the overpayment was eliminated, and she was eligible for a backpayment.