Unemployment is Unattainable For Many Unemployed Workers

In 2011, as state leaders considered changes to Florida's unemployment laws, one legislator told program managers the goal was simple: Florida Employment Lawyer

"We'd like your department," said state Sen. Nancy Detert, "to, you know, get rid of slackers and malingerers."

The approved revisions appear to have done much more than that.

Unemployment-claim denials have soared since the new law took effect, even as the number of claims has fallen. Since the third quarter of 2011, when the measure was implemented, denials have jumped by more than 140 percent, according to federal labor data.

In a 15-month period ending in September, the state rejected 279,000 claims — more than twice the number it denied in the 15 months before the changes became law. Florida Employment Lawyer

The average number of rejections rose to almost 56,000 per quarter, up from about 23,000. Total rejections during the past 15 months is more than all the denials issued in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

The denials have piled up even as total claims fell. Average weekly claims from first-time filers have dropped almost 34 percent during the past two years. Continuing claims shrank by 43 percent.

The data reflect denials issued under the state unemployment program, which provides the first 23 weeks of benefits to laid-off Floridians. It includes claims rejected on largely procedural grounds, not those denied because a worker quit or was dismissed for misconduct.

Also included are claims denied because a laid-off worker was receiving severance pay. Under the new law, claimants cannot simultaneously receive severance and unemployment.

Denials related to severance have grown significantly, but they represent a relatively small portion of the overall increase: about 12 percent.

Florida has long had one of the least-generous unemployment programs in the nation. Its maximum benefit is $275 a week, a figure that hasn't changed in more than a decade. Its average benefit is $231 a week, the 48th-lowest in the U.S. Florida Employment Lawyer

In the 2011 legislation session, Gov. Rick Scott and Republican leaders portrayed the changes as a way to reduce costs and push people toward work.

A spokesman with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, which administers the program, said that, although more claims have been denied, it does not mean the people filing those claims were disqualified from receiving benefits. Florida Employment Lawyer

The money becomes available, said DEO's James Miller, "as soon as the claimant complies with the eligibility condition." Florida Employment Lawyer

"These determinations," Miller said in an email, "seldom result in individuals' inability to receive any payments on their claim."

But worker advocates say the requirements delay and sometimes block people from getting benefits they have earned.

Claimants may no longer file by phone and must complete a 45-question online skills assessment before receiving payments and enter detailed evidence of their work-search activities in the state's online system.


Though each requirement sounds benign, workers say the state's instructions are unclear and the online filing system is temperamental. With little phone help available, many claimants find themselves lost if they encounter a problem or make a mistake.

"This has been a nightmare," said Arthur Rosenberg, an attorney with Florida Legal Services in Miami. "Basically, a maze of obstacles has been put in place."

Former Orlando resident James Taylor was trapped in that maze for several months after being laid off last year. From the outset, he said, the state's system would not allow him to file claims online. When he called DEO, customer-service reps walked him through procedures he was already following.

But they would not let him to file by phone.

"They kept saying they had to have it online," said Taylor, the former executive director of an educational-supply company in Orlando. "I couldn't get anywhere with them."

Taylor, 49, kept trying, taking screen shots of his computer as evidence of his attempts. Weeks passed, and he was still unable to file.

Eventually, Legal Services of North Florida helped Taylor receive more than $2,000, but his lawyer said it never should have come to that.

"This was a no-brainer," said attorney Scott Banion. "He'd done everything correctly."

Laid-off workers and their advocates say computer glitches are not uncommon and, once they occur, can lock claimants out of the system. That can delay their filing and complicate matters later on.

"It's kind of a Catch-22," said George Wentworth, a senior attorney with the National Employment Law Project.

In May, Wentworth's group and Florida Legal Services asked federal labor officials to review the 2011 law. That process is ongoing.

Wentworth said the flood of procedural-based denials suggests Florida lawmakers intended to disqualify as many people as possible.

"When you have these kinds of numbers, it's clear," he said. "This is a deliberate effort to disenfranchise laid-off workers."

Greenberg Traurig Accused of Gender Bias/Discrimination

A former female shareholder in Greenberg Traurig’s Philadelphia office has sued the firm in a putative gender discrimination class action after the EEOC found “‘reasonable cause to believe’” the firm discriminated against women attorneys by compensating them less than their male counterparts, according to the complaint. 

Francine Friedman Griesing, who worked at the firm from April 2007 through January 2010, alleged she was told to look for other employment after complaining about Greenberg Traurig’s compensation policies, which she said created a “boys club of origination” that stifled women’s ability to generate business and bill as many hours as men. Griesing now has her own firm, Griesing Law in Philadelphia.

David Sanford of Sanford Heisler is representing her in this suit, Griesing v. Greenberg Traurig, filed today in the Southern District of New York. Sanford said that while Griesing is the only member of the suit currently, the class is expected to be near 215 members dating back to 2007. He said they are seeking $200 million in damages, one-quarter of which is for back and front pay, one-quarter toward compensatory damages and half of which is for punitive damages. Sanford said it is very rare for the EEOC to find reasonable cause, with only 3.8 percent of single-plaintiff and class cases combined receiving that determination.

Greenberg Traurig executive committee member Hilarie Bass said in a statement that Griesing’s lawsuit paints a false picture of the work environment at the firm. “The lawsuit filed today by Francine Griesing and her attorneys is an affront to the accomplished, talented women of Greenberg Traurig, who, like all of our lawyers, are compensated based on merit,” Bass said in the statement. “It is nothing more than a financially motivated publicity stunt without merit, backed by neither fact nor law.”

 Bass continued that the complaint misrepresents the EEOC investigation, which she said included only a small number of women in one office of the firm and in which Griesing was the only complainant. “The firm intends to vigorously defend our practices against her lawsuit and we fully expect to prevail,” Bass said. Bass said Griesing “refused” to submit this matter to arbitration as required by the firm’s shareholder agreement. Greenberg Traurig filed a petition in federal court in Philadelphia today to compel arbitration, Bass said.

A docket number for Greenberg Traurig’s filing is available online, but no documents filed in the case were available, according to a search of the federal court’s PACER system. Greenberg Traurig is represented in that matter by Baker Botts in Washington and Freeman Law Offices in Philadelphia. According to Griesing’s complaint, Greenberg Traurig has a closed compensation system in which only CEO Richard Rosenbaum makes all promotion and compensation decisions with advisement from four other male shareholders who serve as the compensation committee.

 Greenberg Traurig has three shareholder levels, consisting of the 300 level, 500 level and 1,000 level. The 1,000 level is the most highly compensated, and less than 10 percent of that level are female attorneys, according to the complaint. The 1,000-level shareholders get nearly exclusive access to the firm’s retreats where they can network and refer business, Griesing said in the complaint.

According to the complaint, the 1,000-level shareholders are estimated to earn $1 million more per year than other shareholders. Most new shareholders are placed in the 300 or 500 levels and are required to remain in the 500 level for a certain period of time before becoming eligible for the 1,000 level. Griesing was hired at the 300 level, where all but one of the female Philadelphia shareholders were placed.

According to the complaint, men with similar or less qualifications were placed in the 500 level. “By assigning women to lower levels and delaying their promotion, the firm denies its female shareholders compensation and opportunities to which they are otherwise entitled,” Griesing alleged in the complaint. She alleged the compensation system lacks sufficient standards, quality controls, implementation metrics, transparency and oversight. Griesing said she brought in more than $4 million in timekeeper revenues and origination during her time at the firm. She was told that if she generated $600,000 in originations, she would receive a $108,000 bonus and that the bonus would increase as the origination increased, according to the complaint. Despite bringing in double the origination, her bonus was only $115,000 in 2008, Griesing said in the complaint. “GT has one exception to its general practice of denying women professional development opportunities and compensating women less than men,”

Griesing alleged in the complaint. “GT prioritizes, pays and promotes women who have intimate relationships with firm leaders or who acquiesce to sexualized stereotypes.” When Griesing raised concerns about her pay to Philadelphia Regional Operating Shareholder Michael Lehr, he allegedly agreed she was owed more in compensation but allegedly said the firm decreased her bonus to be able to offer higher bonuses to male shareholders who had “‘families to support,’” according to the complaint. Lehr allegedly said Griesing was “‘lucky to have a job,’” according to the complaint.

 After exhausting other avenues up the food chain in the firm, Griesing said in the complaint that she was left with no other option but to go to Rosenbaum. According to the complaint, Rosenbaum allegedly told Griesing he would not investigate her claims unless she agreed to be “‘happy’” at the firm. Griesing then filed a complaint with the EEOC. At a subsequent meeting, Rosenbaum allegedly told Griesing she needed to leave the firm if she was going to persist in questioning her compensation, according to the complaint. The firm then stopped assigning Griesing work and urged her principal associate to work for another shareholder, according to the complaint.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on July 28 determined Griesing had been paid $50,000 less than her nearest male counterpart; that women shareholders were on average compensated less than men at the firm, and men were more likely than women to be hired above level 300. A conciliation process with the EEOC, Griesing and Greenberg Traurig ensued over the past few months, but Sanford said today’s complaint is evidence that those talks did not result in a settlement. He said Greenberg Traurig has “ample” reason to settle this nationwide class action.