FIRST DIVISION October 25, 2010
No. 1-09-3390
STEPHEN LYTE, ) Appeal from the Circuit Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Court of Cook County. ) v. ) No. 09 L 51092 ) THE DEPARTMENT OF ) The Honorable EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ) Elmer James Tolmaire, III, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE GARCIA delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff, Stephen Lyte, appeals the circuit court's
decision confirming the administrative decision of the Board of
Review of the Illinois Department of Employment Security
(Department) finding the plaintiff ineligible to receive
emergency unemployment compensation under the "Emergency
Unemployment Compensation" program (EUC08) pursuant to the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. 110-252, §4001(d), 122 Stat. 2353, 2354 (to be codified at 26 U.S.C. §3304), enacted
on June 30, 2008, and the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act
of 2008, Pub. L. 110-449, 122 Stat. 5014, 5016 (to be codified at
28 U.S.C. §3304), subsequently enacted on November 21, 2008. The
plaintiff contends the Board erred as a matter of law in finding
him ineligible for emergency unemployment compensation. We find
the Board properly determined that the plaintiff did not meet the eligibility requirements for EUC08 benefits and affirm.1
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff was employed by Iowa College Acquisition
Corporation from July 12, 2005, to July 12, 2006. In July 2006,
he filed for unemployment insurance benefits, which he received
from July 2006 to January 2007. On January 25, 2009, the
plaintiff filed a claim for emergency unemployment compensation
pursuant to the EUC08 program. On March 5, 2009, a claims
adjudicator found the plaintiff ineligible for such benefits
because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for earned
wages under the EUC08 program. The plaintiff appealed the
decision of the claims adjudicator.
On March 30, 2009, a Department referee conducted a hearing.
The referee explained to the plaintiff that under the EUC08
program whether a claimant is entitled to extended unemployment
benefits depends on the amount of wages he has earned during the
"base period" for the claimant. The referee informed the plaintiff that the Department's records established the
plaintiff's base period to be April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006.
The Department's records revealed that the plaintiff had two
employers during the base period: (1) Ultimate Staffing Services,
1 We granted the Department's motion to publish the
original decision issued as a Supreme Court Rule 23 order. 166
Ill. 2d R. 23.
2 a temporary employment agency, reported that it paid the
plaintiff $1,144 in wages for the time period April 1, 2005, to
June 30, 2005; and (2) Iowa College Acquisition Corporation
reported that it paid the plaintiff $2,328.83 in wages for the
time period January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2006. No wages were
reported for the intervening two quarters from July 1, 2005, to
December 31, 2005.
At the hearing, the plaintiff did not dispute the earnings
reports from his two employers and testified he did not work
during the intervening quarters. The plaintiff explained the
basis for his appeal from the claims adjudicator's decision:
"What's in question is they were using a state formula and this
was based on a federal state agreement. *** It's a question of
EUC08." The Department referee agreed that the plaintiff's claim
for benefits fell under the federal extension of unemployment
benefits as provided by the EUC08 program.
On March 31, 2009, the hearing referee affirmed the claims adjudicator's determination that the plaintiff was ineligible for
emergency unemployment compensation under the EUC08 program. The
referee explained that in order for a claimant to be eligible for
temporary extended benefits under the program, the claimant must
have earned wages during the base period that are at least 1.5
times the amount of wages received during the quarter with the
highest earnings. Based on this formula, the referee calculated
3 that the plaintiff's total base period wages were only 1.49 times
the wages he earned during the quarter with the highest earning.
On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff appealed the referee's decision
to the Department's Board of Review.
On August 5, 2009, the Board of Review adopted the referee's
decision that the plaintiff is ineligible for emergency
unemployment compensation under the EUC08 program. The Board of
Review found the plaintiff earned $3,472.83 during the base
period of April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006. The plaintiff's
highest earnings in a quarter during the base period was
$2,328.83. Applying the formula under the EUC08 program, the
Board determined that 1.5 times $2,328.83 is $3,493.25, which
means the plaintiff's total earnings of $3,472.83 during the base
period was less than the minimum he needed to qualify. The Board
therefore found the plaintiff ineligible for emergency
unemployment compensation.
On August 24, 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the circuit court of Cook County seeking review of the Board of
Review's decision. On November 12, 2009, the circuit court
affirmed the Board's decision. The plaintiff timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, the plaintiff contends the trial court erred in
affirming the Board of Review's decision that he was ineligible
to receive emergency unemployment compensation. The plaintiff
4 argues he was eligible for benefits under the federally funded
EUC08 program because he exhausted his regular unemployment
insurance benefits before applying. The plaintiff contends the
Department referee "was confused with the EUC temporary/Federal
program and similarly name[d] EUC permanent Federal-State
program." The plaintiff argues his claim was under the latter,
but was treated as if it was brought under the former. The
plaintiff claims he is entitled to receive benefits from July
2008 to the present.
The scope of judicial review of any final administrative
decision extends to all questions of law and fact presented by
the record. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2008). The applicable
standard of review depends upon whether the question presented is
one of fact, law, or a mixed question of law and fact. City of
Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d
191, 205, 692 N.E.2d 295 (1998). An administrative agency's
findings and conclusions on pure questions of fact are deemed to be prima facie true and correct. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2008).
On appeal from a decision granting or denying unemployment
compensation benefits, we review the decision of the agency,
rather than the decision by the circuit court. We review an
agency's findings of fact under the manifest weight of the
evidence standard. Richardson Brothers v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FIRST DIVISION October 25, 2010
No. 1-09-3390
STEPHEN LYTE, ) Appeal from the Circuit Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Court of Cook County. ) v. ) No. 09 L 51092 ) THE DEPARTMENT OF ) The Honorable EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ) Elmer James Tolmaire, III, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE GARCIA delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff, Stephen Lyte, appeals the circuit court's
decision confirming the administrative decision of the Board of
Review of the Illinois Department of Employment Security
(Department) finding the plaintiff ineligible to receive
emergency unemployment compensation under the "Emergency
Unemployment Compensation" program (EUC08) pursuant to the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. 110-252, §4001(d), 122 Stat. 2353, 2354 (to be codified at 26 U.S.C. §3304), enacted
on June 30, 2008, and the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act
of 2008, Pub. L. 110-449, 122 Stat. 5014, 5016 (to be codified at
28 U.S.C. §3304), subsequently enacted on November 21, 2008. The
plaintiff contends the Board erred as a matter of law in finding
him ineligible for emergency unemployment compensation. We find
the Board properly determined that the plaintiff did not meet the eligibility requirements for EUC08 benefits and affirm.1
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff was employed by Iowa College Acquisition
Corporation from July 12, 2005, to July 12, 2006. In July 2006,
he filed for unemployment insurance benefits, which he received
from July 2006 to January 2007. On January 25, 2009, the
plaintiff filed a claim for emergency unemployment compensation
pursuant to the EUC08 program. On March 5, 2009, a claims
adjudicator found the plaintiff ineligible for such benefits
because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for earned
wages under the EUC08 program. The plaintiff appealed the
decision of the claims adjudicator.
On March 30, 2009, a Department referee conducted a hearing.
The referee explained to the plaintiff that under the EUC08
program whether a claimant is entitled to extended unemployment
benefits depends on the amount of wages he has earned during the
"base period" for the claimant. The referee informed the plaintiff that the Department's records established the
plaintiff's base period to be April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006.
The Department's records revealed that the plaintiff had two
employers during the base period: (1) Ultimate Staffing Services,
1 We granted the Department's motion to publish the
original decision issued as a Supreme Court Rule 23 order. 166
Ill. 2d R. 23.
2 a temporary employment agency, reported that it paid the
plaintiff $1,144 in wages for the time period April 1, 2005, to
June 30, 2005; and (2) Iowa College Acquisition Corporation
reported that it paid the plaintiff $2,328.83 in wages for the
time period January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2006. No wages were
reported for the intervening two quarters from July 1, 2005, to
December 31, 2005.
At the hearing, the plaintiff did not dispute the earnings
reports from his two employers and testified he did not work
during the intervening quarters. The plaintiff explained the
basis for his appeal from the claims adjudicator's decision:
"What's in question is they were using a state formula and this
was based on a federal state agreement. *** It's a question of
EUC08." The Department referee agreed that the plaintiff's claim
for benefits fell under the federal extension of unemployment
benefits as provided by the EUC08 program.
On March 31, 2009, the hearing referee affirmed the claims adjudicator's determination that the plaintiff was ineligible for
emergency unemployment compensation under the EUC08 program. The
referee explained that in order for a claimant to be eligible for
temporary extended benefits under the program, the claimant must
have earned wages during the base period that are at least 1.5
times the amount of wages received during the quarter with the
highest earnings. Based on this formula, the referee calculated
3 that the plaintiff's total base period wages were only 1.49 times
the wages he earned during the quarter with the highest earning.
On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff appealed the referee's decision
to the Department's Board of Review.
On August 5, 2009, the Board of Review adopted the referee's
decision that the plaintiff is ineligible for emergency
unemployment compensation under the EUC08 program. The Board of
Review found the plaintiff earned $3,472.83 during the base
period of April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006. The plaintiff's
highest earnings in a quarter during the base period was
$2,328.83. Applying the formula under the EUC08 program, the
Board determined that 1.5 times $2,328.83 is $3,493.25, which
means the plaintiff's total earnings of $3,472.83 during the base
period was less than the minimum he needed to qualify. The Board
therefore found the plaintiff ineligible for emergency
unemployment compensation.
On August 24, 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the circuit court of Cook County seeking review of the Board of
Review's decision. On November 12, 2009, the circuit court
affirmed the Board's decision. The plaintiff timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, the plaintiff contends the trial court erred in
affirming the Board of Review's decision that he was ineligible
to receive emergency unemployment compensation. The plaintiff
4 argues he was eligible for benefits under the federally funded
EUC08 program because he exhausted his regular unemployment
insurance benefits before applying. The plaintiff contends the
Department referee "was confused with the EUC temporary/Federal
program and similarly name[d] EUC permanent Federal-State
program." The plaintiff argues his claim was under the latter,
but was treated as if it was brought under the former. The
plaintiff claims he is entitled to receive benefits from July
2008 to the present.
The scope of judicial review of any final administrative
decision extends to all questions of law and fact presented by
the record. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2008). The applicable
standard of review depends upon whether the question presented is
one of fact, law, or a mixed question of law and fact. City of
Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d
191, 205, 692 N.E.2d 295 (1998). An administrative agency's
findings and conclusions on pure questions of fact are deemed to be prima facie true and correct. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2008).
On appeal from a decision granting or denying unemployment
compensation benefits, we review the decision of the agency,
rather than the decision by the circuit court. We review an
agency's findings of fact under the manifest weight of the
evidence standard. Richardson Brothers v. Board of Review of the
Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. App. 3d 422, 428, 555
5 N.E.2d 1126 (1990). This court does not reweigh the evidence or
substitute its judgment for that of the agency unless the factual
findings are "without substantial support in the record."
Richardson Brothers, 198 Ill. App. 3d at 429. We review
questions of law decided by an agency de novo, which means such
decisions are not binding on a court of review. City of
Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205.
Here, the Board of Review found the plaintiff was not
eligible for emergency unemployment compensation under the EUC08
program because he did not have total wages in his base period
that were at least 1.5 times the wages earned during the base-
period quarter with the highest earnings. The plaintiff does not
dispute the arithmetical calculations of the Board. Accordingly,
the issue as framed by the plaintiff is solely a question of law,
whether the Board decided his case under the correct statute,
which we review de novo.
The plaintiff offers no support for his argument that the Board of Review erred in finding he was not eligible for
emergency unemployment benefits because it relied upon the wrong
statute in determining that he was ineligible for such benefits.
Based on the record before us, the Board applied the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, which authorized the federal Emergency
Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program to extend unemployment
benefits authorized under federal law, to determine the
6 plaintiff's eligibility. The EUC08 program was established to
provide up to 53 weeks of additional unemployment benefits after
an eligible claimant has exhausted his or her regular
unemployment insurance benefits. The EUC08 program is
administered through voluntary agreements between the states and
the United States Department of Labor. The Illinois Department
of Employment Security administers the federal EUC08 program for
Illinois claimants.
Section 409 of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act
governs the provision regarding extended unemployment benefits.
To be eligible for EUC08 benefits in Illinois, the claimant must
have "been paid wages for insured work during his base period
equal to at least 11/2 times the wages paid in that calendar
quarter of his base period in which such wages were highest."
820 ILCS 405/409(B) (West Supp. 2009). Under the Illinois
Unemployment Insurance Act, "base period" is defined as "the
first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the benefit year." 820 ILCS 405/237(A)
(West 2008). "Calendar quarter" is the three-consecutive-month
period ending March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31
(820 ILCS 405/238 (West 2008)) and "benefit year" is the one-year
period beginning with the first day of the week with respect to
which a claimant first files a valid claim for benefits (820 ILCS
405/242 (West 2008)).
7 The Board of Review adopted the referee's calculations under
the EUC08 program formula as set out above. The plaintiff does
not dispute these factual findings. Because 11/2 times $2,328.83,
the plaintiff's highest quarter of wages during his base period,
equals $3,493.25, and the plaintiff only earned a total of
$3,472.83 during his base period, the Board properly found the
plaintiff ineligible for benefits under the EUC08 program. The
plaintiff offers no plausible argument to support his contention
that the calculations were made under the wrong statute to compel
us to disturb the Board's decision.
CONCLUSION
The Board of Review's determination that the plaintiff was
ineligible for emergency unemployment compensation under the
EUC08 pursuant to the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub.
L. 110-252, §4001(d), 122 Stat. 2353, 2354 (to be codified at 26
U.S.C. §3304), and the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act,
Pub. L. 110-449, 122 Stat. 5014, 5016 (to be codified at 28 U.S.C. §3304), was neither against the manifest weight of the
evidence nor contrary to law. Accordingly, we affirm the Board
of Review's decision.
Affirmed.
Hall, P.J., and Patti, J., concur.
8 REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT _________________________________________________________________
STEPHEN LYTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appellate Court of Illinois First District, First Division
Filed:October 25, 2010 ________________________________________________________________
HALL, P.J., and PATTI, J., concur. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County Elmer James Tolmaire, III, Judge Presiding ________________________________________________________________
For PLAINTIFF- Stephen Lyte, Pro Se APPELLANT 7837 South Yates Blvd. Chicago, Illinois 60649
For DEFENDANT- Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, State of Illinois APPELLEE Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General Janon E. Fabiano, Assistant Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601