20 C.F.R. § 640.5

Criteria for compliance

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The criteria in the schedule below shall apply in determining whether, in the administration of a State law, there has been substantial compliance with the provision required by section 303(a)(1) in the issuance of benefit payments to eligible claimants for the first compensable weeks of unemployment in their benefit years:

	Percentage of first payments issued—days following end of first compensable week
	14 days, waiting week States	21 days, nonwaiting week States ¹	35 days, all States
Intrastate Claims
Performance to be achieved for the 12-mo. period ending on March 31 of each year	87	87	93
Interstate Claims
Performance to be achieved for the 12-mo. period ending on March 31 of each year	70	70	78
¹ A nonwaiting week State is any State whose law does not require that a non-compensable period of unemployment be served before the payment of benefits commences.

A State will be deemed to comply substantially, as set out in §§ 640.2(b) and 640.3(b), if its average performance, for the period of review, meets or exceeds the applicable criteria set forth above. [43 FR 33225, July 28, 1978, as amended at 71 FR 35516, June 21, 2006]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2021 · leading case: Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “Under DOL regulations prescribing the timely processing of UI claims, a state is in substantial compliance with the federal timeliness requirements if at least 87 percent of benefit payments are made within 14 days following the end of the first compensable week after filing (…”

Murguia v. Childers (W.D. Ark. 2021). “See 20 C.F.R. § 640.5 . The Department of Labor also instructs that “[s]tate UI agencies should provide adequate notice to [limited-English- proficient] individuals of the existence of interpretation and translation services and that they are available free of charge.”

Murguia v. Childers (W.D. Ark. 2021). “See 20 C.F.R. § 640.5 . DOL has also promulgated regulations regarding language access for limited- English-proficient (“LEP”) claimants that require state UI agencies to “take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to each limited English proficient individual served or…”

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.