(a) Purpose. (1) Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act requires, for the purposes of title III of that Act, that a State unemployment compensation law include provision for methods of administration of the law that are reasonably calculated to insure the full payment of unemployment compensation when determined under the State law to be due to claimants. The standard in this part is issued to implement section 303(a)(1) in regard to promptness in the payment of unemployment benefits to eligible claimants.
(2) Although the standard applies to the promptness of all benefit payments and the criteria apply directly to the promptness of first benefit payments, it is recognized that adequate performance is contingent upon the prompt determination of eligibility by the State as a condition for the payment or denial of benefits. Accordingly, implicit in prompt performance with respect to benefit payments is the corresponding need for promptness by the State in making determinations of eligibility. However, applicable Federal laws provide no authority for the Secretary of Labor to determine the eligibility of individuals under a State law.
(b) Scope. (1) The standard in this part applies to all State laws approved by the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 3304), and to the administration of the State laws.
(2) The standard specified in § 640.4 applies to all claims for unemployment compensation. The criteria for State compliance in § 640.5 apply to first payments of unemployment compensation under the State law to eligible claimants following the filing of initial claims and first compensable claims.
[43 FR 33225, July 28, 1978, as amended at 71 FR 35516, June 21, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1977–2013 · leading case:
Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
“Federal regulations authorizing DOL to monitor and enforce state compliance with the foregoing provisions of the Social Security Act ( 20 C.F.R. § 640.1 et seq. (2012)) provide that when the average performance of a state UI program over a 12-month period ending on March 31…”
Pennington v. Didrickson, 22 F.3d 1376 (7th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 640.1 (a)(2). In Illinois, an eligible unemployment insurance claimant can draw benefits in “the one-year period beginning with the first day of the week with respect to which the individual first files a valid claim for benefits.”
City of Springfield v. Dir. of the Div. of Emp. Sec., 500 N.E.2d 1328 (Mass. 1986).
“§ 503 (a)(1) (1982) and 20 C.F.R. § 640.1 (a)(2) (1986). While this question was not raised or decided below and is therefore not properly before the court, we note that the division’s reliance on Jenkins v.”
Pennington v. Doherty, 110 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1997).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 640.1 (a)(2). Given the deference that we owe the Secretary’s interpretation of the statute which he is charged with administering, these regulatory directives were the foundation of our direction to the district court.”
Ortega v. Usery, 441 F. Supp. 100 (D. Conn. 1977).
“” 20 C.F.R. 640.1(a) (1977). The 80 percent and 60 percent payment criteria are convenient and easily applied guidelines to test a state’s compliance with the Act.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 640.1(a) — 1 case
Ortega v. Usery, 441 F. Supp. 100 (D. Conn. 1977).
“” 20 C.F.R. 640.1(a) (1977). The 80 percent and 60 percent payment criteria are convenient and easily applied guidelines to test a state’s compliance with the Act.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.