Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Administrative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff warns changing monetary determinations mid-year risks litigation and improper payments
Summary
Department staff told the subcommittee that New Hampshire Supreme Court precedent treats a claimant27s monetary determination as a protected property interest, and that allowing multiple or fluctuating monetary determinations within a benefit year would raise legal, administrative, and improper-payment risks. Staff recommended locking monetary determinations at initial claim filing unless the system is redesigned and thoroughly tested.
Department staff told the subcommittee there is New Hampshire Supreme Court case law holding that a claimant has a protected property interest in an unemployment monetary determination once eligibility is established. Staff said that creating multiple monetary determinations for the same claimant within a benefit year could be challenged and would increase improper-payment risk.
Operational concerns: staff explained the unemployment system27s architecture depends on a single, locked monetary determination. Allowing fluctuating monetaries would require significant system changes, extensive testing, and would likely raise the department27s improper-payment rate because payments made in error are generally kept by claimants unless fraud is proven. Staff recommended avoiding multiple monetaries and instead using statutory designs that preserve a single monetary determination at filing.
Enforcement and equity questions: staff also discussed difficulties capturing gig/1099 wages for base-period calculations and noted the department attempts to include 1099 evidence from claimants and then pursue employer misclassification where appropriate. Committee members raised equity concerns about different filers standing side-by-side with different weekly benefits and durations depending on trigger timing.
Next steps: staff offered to provide the cited Supreme Court opinion and work with the subcommittee on statutory language that minimizes operational and legal risk.
