Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 421 / Act 1 of 1936 (Ex. Sess.)
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.32 (2026)

Claims for benefits; examination; determination; notice.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ACT


Act 1 of 1936 (Ex. Sess.)


421.32 Claims for benefits; examination; determination; notice.

Sec. 32.

    (a) Claims for benefits shall be made pursuant to regulations prescribed by the unemployment agency. The unemployment agency shall designate representatives who shall promptly examine claims and make a determination on the facts. The unemployment agency may establish rules providing for the examination of claims, the determination of the validity of the claims, and the amount and duration of benefits to be paid. The claimant and other interested parties shall be promptly notified of the determination and the reasons for the determination.

    (b) The unemployment agency shall mail to the claimant, to each base period employer or employing unit, and to the separating employer or employing unit, a monetary determination. The monetary determination shall notify each of these employers or employing units that the claimant has filed an application for benefits and the amount the claimant reported as earned with the separating employer or employing unit, and shall state the name of each employer or employing unit in the base period and the name of the separating employer or employing unit. The monetary determination shall also state the claimant's weekly benefit rate, the amount of base period wages paid by each base period employer, the maximum benefit amount that could be charged to each employer's account or experience account, and the reason for separation reported by the claimant. The monetary determination shall also state whether the claimant is monetarily eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Except for separations under section 29(1)(a), no further reconsideration of a separation from any base period employer will be made unless the base period employer notifies the unemployment agency of a possible disqualifying separation within 30 days of the separation in accordance with this subsection. Charges to the employer and payments to the claimant shall be as described in section 20(a). New, additional, or corrected information received by the unemployment agency more than 10 days after mailing the monetary determination shall be considered a request for reconsideration by the employer of the monetary determination and shall be reviewed as provided in section 32a.

    (c) For the purpose of determining a claimant's nonmonetary eligibility and qualification for benefits, if the claimant's most recent base period or benefit year separation was for a reason other than the lack of work, then a determination shall be issued concerning that separation to the claimant and to the separating employer. If a claimant is not disqualified based on his or her most recent separation from employment and has satisfied the requirements of section 29, the unemployment agency shall issue a nonmonetary determination as to that separation only. If a claimant is not disqualified based on his or her most recent separation from employment and has not satisfied the requirements of section 29, the unemployment agency shall issue 1 or more nonmonetary determinations necessary to establish the claimant's qualification for benefits based on any prior separation in inverse chronological order. The unemployment agency shall consider all base period separations involving disqualifications under section 29(1)(h), (i), (j), (k), (m), or (n) in determining a claimant's nonmonetary eligibility and qualification for benefits. An employer may designate in writing to the unemployment agency an individual or another employer or an employing unit to receive any notice required to be given by the unemployment agency to that employer or to represent that employer in any proceeding before the unemployment agency as provided in section 31. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, beginning May 1, 2020, and until the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, in determining a claimant's nonmonetary eligibility to qualify for benefits, the unemployment agency shall not issue a determination with respect to the claimant's separation from a base period or benefit year employer other than the separating employer, and the unemployment agency shall consider the claimant to have satisfied the requirements of section 29(2) and (3).

    (d) If the unemployment agency requests additional monetary or nonmonetary information from an employer or employing unit and the unemployment agency fails to receive a written response from the employer or employing unit within 10 calendar days after the date of mailing the request for information, the unemployment agency shall make a determination based upon the available information at the time the determination is made. Charges to the employer and payments to the claimant shall be as described in section 20(a).

    (e) The claimant or interested party may file an application with an office of the unemployment agency for a redetermination in accordance with section 32a.

    (f) The issuance of each benefit check shall be considered a determination by the unemployment agency that the claimant receiving the check was covered during the compensable period, and eligible and qualified for benefits. A chargeable employer, upon receipt of a listing of the check as provided in section 21(a), may protest by requesting a redetermination of the claimant's eligibility or qualification as to that period and a determination as to later weeks and benefits still unpaid that are affected by the protest. Upon receipt of the protest or request, the unemployment agency shall investigate and redetermine whether the claimant is eligible and qualified as to that period. If, upon the redetermination, the claimant is found ineligible or not qualified, the unemployment agency shall proceed as described in section 62. In addition, the unemployment agency shall investigate and determine whether the claimant obtained benefits for 1 or more preceding weeks within the series of consecutive weeks that includes the week covered by the redetermination and, if so, shall proceed as described in section 62 as to those weeks. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, for benefits charged after March 15, 2020 but before April 1, 2021, an employer has 1 year after the date a benefit payment is charged against the employer's account to protest that charge.

    (g) If a claimant commences to file continued claims through a different state claim office in this state or elsewhere, the unemployment agency promptly shall issue written notice of that fact to the chargeable employer.

    (h) If a claimant refuses an offer of work, or fails to apply for work of which the claimant has been notified, as provided in section 29(1)(c) or (e), the unemployment agency shall promptly make a written determination as to whether or not the refusal or failure requires disqualification under section 29. Notice of the determination, specifying the name and address of the employing unit offering or giving notice of the work and of the chargeable employer, shall be sent to the claimant, the employing unit offering or giving notice of the work, and the chargeable employer.

    (i) The unemployment agency shall issue a notification to the claimant of claimant rights and responsibilities within 2 weeks after the initial benefit payment on a claim and 6 months after the initial benefit payment on the claim. If the claimant selected a preferred form of communication, the notification must be conveyed by that form. Issuing the notification must not delay or interfere with the claimant's benefit payment. The notification must contain clear and understandable information pertaining to all of the following:

    (i) Determinations as provided in section 62.

    (ii) Penalties and other sanctions as provided in this act.

    (iii) Legal right to protest the determination and the right to appeal through the administrative hearing system.

    (iv) Other information needed to understand and comply with agency rules and regulations not specified in this section.

    

    

History: 1936, Ex. Sess., Act 1, Imd. Eff. Dec. 24, 1936 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 324, Imd. Eff. June 22, 1939 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 364, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1941 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 360, Imd. Eff. July 8, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 421.32 ;-- Am. 1951, Act 251, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1951 ;-- Am. 1954, Act 197, Imd. Eff. May 7, 1954 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 281, Eff. July 15, 1955 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 281, Eff. Sept. 5, 1965 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 231, Imd. Eff. Jan. 3, 1972 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 535, Eff. Jan. 2, 1983 ;-- Am. 1983, Act 164, Imd. Eff. July 24, 1983 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 162, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1994 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 503, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1997 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 192, Imd. Eff. Apr. 26, 2002 ;-- Am. 2013, Act 144, Imd. Eff. Oct. 29, 2013 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 522, Eff. Apr. 9, 2017 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 229, Imd. Eff. Oct. 20, 2020 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 258, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 2020

Compiler's Notes:

    In the last sentence of subdivision (c) which was added by Act 229 of 2020, the phrase "until the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection" evidently should read "until the effective date of the amendatory act that added this sentence."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: Dow Chem. Co. v. Curtis, 430 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dow Chem. Co. v. Curtis, 430 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 6× “MCL 421.32(d); MSA 17.534(d), provides: The issuance of each benefit check shall be considered a determination by the commission that the claimant receiving the checking [sic] was covered during the compensable period, and eligible and qualified for benefits.”
Empire Iron Mining P'ship v. Orhanen, 565 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 421.32(a); M.S.A. § 17.534(a) and M.C.L.”
Pike v. City of Wyoming, 433 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “See MCL 421.32(d); MSA 17.534(d) (providing that the issuance of each benefit check constitutes a determination of qualification and eligibility for unemployment benefits).”
Park v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 94 N.W.2d 407 (Mich. 1959). · cites it 2× “[*******] See CLS 1952, §§ 421.32 subd (c), 421.32a, 421.33, 421.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Michigan Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 266 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “Subsection 20(a) provided for paid benefit charges against the contributing employer’s rating account in the quarter paid and the procedure to be applied when these charges were determined by MESC to have been improperly levied. That subsection read: " 'Benefits paid shall be…”
State Bar of Mich. v. Galloway, 369 N.W.2d 839 (Mich. 1985). “MCL 421.32; MSA 17.534. Referees appointed by the commission review those administrative determinations.”
Roman Cleanser Co. v. Murphy, 194 N.W.2d 704 (Mich. 1972). “9 “9 ‘The issuance of each benefit cheek shall be considered a determination by the commission that the claimant receiving the check was, during the compensable period, covered thereby, eligible and qualified for benefits, and any employer upon receipt of a copy of the check as…”
Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Frank Lucente (Mich. 2021). · cites it 22× “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. v. Michael Herzog (Mich. 2021). · cites it 22× “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
In Re Schlossberg, 200 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1972). “In fact, the phrases "interested party", "interested parties", and "parties interested" appear no less than 14 times in sections 421.32 through 421.37, and are used 3 times in section 421.”
Roman Cleanser Co. v. Murphy, 185 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 4× “[9] "The issuance of each benefit check shall be considered a determination by the commission that the claimant receiving the check was, during the compensable period, covered thereby, eligible and qualified for benefits, and any employer upon receipt of a copy of the check as…”
Schlossberg v. State Bar Grievance Bd., 200 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1972). “In fact, the phrases "interested party”, "interested parties”, and "parties interested” appear no less, than 14 times in sections 421.32 through 421.37, and are used 3 times in section 421.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.32(a) — 9 cases
Empire Iron Mining P'ship v. Orhanen, 565 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. 1997). “§ 421.32(a); M.S.A. § 17.534(a) and M.C.L.”
Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Frank Lucente (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. v. Michael Herzog (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Od Lillian a Scott v. Enter. Synergy LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
O Lillian a Scott v. Enter. Synergy LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.32(b) — 5 cases
McBride v. Americana Mobile Home Park, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Frank Lucente (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. v. Michael Herzog (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Margaret Barnowski v. Cleary Univ. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Kreps v. Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency (E.D. Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.32(c) — 4 cases
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Michigan Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 266 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “Subsection 20(a) provided for paid benefit charges against the contributing employer’s rating account in the quarter paid and the procedure to be applied when these charges were determined by MESC to have been improperly levied. That subsection read: " 'Benefits paid shall be…”
Margaret Barnowski v. Cleary Univ. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Frank Lucente (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. v. Michael Herzog (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.32(d) — 8 cases
Dow Chem. Co. v. Curtis, 430 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. 1988). “MCL 421.32(d); MSA 17.534(d), provides: The issuance of each benefit check shall be considered a determination by the commission that the claimant receiving the checking [sic] was covered during the compensable period, and eligible and qualified for benefits.”
Pike v. City of Wyoming, 433 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. 1988). “See MCL 421.32(d); MSA 17.534(d) (providing that the issuance of each benefit check constitutes a determination of qualification and eligibility for unemployment benefits).”
Roman Cleanser Co. v. Murphy, 194 N.W.2d 704 (Mich. 1972). “9 “9 ‘The issuance of each benefit cheek shall be considered a determination by the commission that the claimant receiving the check was, during the compensable period, covered thereby, eligible and qualified for benefits, and any employer upon receipt of a copy of the check as…”
Roman Cleanser Co. v. Murphy, 185 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “[9] "The issuance of each benefit check shall be considered a determination by the commission that the claimant receiving the check was, during the compensable period, covered thereby, eligible and qualified for benefits, and any employer upon receipt of a copy of the check as…”
Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Frank Lucente (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.32(e) — 3 cases
Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Frank Lucente (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. v. Michael Herzog (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Kreps v. Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency (E.D. Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.32(f) — 4 cases
Michigan Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Frank Lucente (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Dep't of Talent & Econ. Dev. v. Michael Herzog (Mich. 2021). “” MCL 421.32(a). The MESA does not define the term “determination,” but the act tells us in what circumstances a “determination” can be made.”
Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Andrew Augustine (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Sharon Austin v. Hospice North Ottawa Cmty. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 421.32(i)(iii) — 1 case
Stephen E Connor v. Unemployment Ins. Agency (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
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.