(a) An individual shall not be eligible for benefits for any week of his or her partial
or total unemployment unless during that week he or she is physically able to work
full-time and be available for full-time work. To prove availability for work, every
individual partially or totally unemployed shall register for work and shall:
(1) File a claim for benefits within any time limits, with any frequency, and in any manner,
in person or in writing, as the director may prescribe;
(2) Respond whenever duly called for work through the employment office; and
(3) Make an active, independent search for suitable, full-time work.
(b) If an unemployed individual has been determined to be likely to exhaust regular benefits
and to need reemployment services pursuant to a profiling system established by the
director, the individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any
week only if the individual participates in reemployment services, such as job search
assistance services, unless the director determines that:
(1) The individual has completed those services; or
(2) There is justifiable cause for the individual’s failure to participate in those services.
(c) No individual shall be eligible for any benefits for any week in which he or she fails,
without good cause, to comply with the requirements as set forth above.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title to the contrary, individuals with
a definite return-to-work date that is within twelve (12) weeks of their last day
of physical work, as certified by their employer on the employer separation notice
provided to the department, shall be exempt from the work search requirements of subsections
(a)(2) and (a)(3).
Notes of Decisions
Rhode Island Temps, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Training, 749 A.2d 1121 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 13× “He also found that her refusal to accept either position, in the absence of evidence of unsuitability, restricted her availability for work and justified denial of benefits pursuant to § 28-44-12. The Director then determined that Martino had been overpaid unemployment benefits…”
Berberian v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., Bd. of Review, 414 A.2d 480 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 4× “General Laws 1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-44-12 and § 28-44-38. The plaintiff admitted that he thereafter worked only on a daily basis, occasionally administering the business of the corporation in his capacity as executive director for which he asserts he earned no money, and…”
DePetrillo v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., Bd. of Review, 623 A.2d 31 (R.I. 1993).
· cites it 8× “1956 (1986 Reenactment) § 28-44-12, (2) that plaintiff was monetarily ineligible pursuant to § 28-44-11, and (3) that plaintiff failed to establish a “waiting period” in compliance with § 28-44-14.”
Huntley v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 397 A.2d 902 (R.I. 1979).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1968 Reenactment) §28-44-12, and benefits were denied on that basis.”
St. Pierre v. Fulflex, Inc., 493 A.2d 817 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-44-12, which provides that “[a]n individual shall not be eligible for [unemployment] benefits for any week of his partial or total unemployment unless during such week he is physically able to work and available for work.”
Kachanis v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Emp. & Training, 638 A.2d 553 (R.I. 1994).
“Had plaintiffs not resumed their jobs, however, each would have been “entitled to a retroactive payment of the compensation * * * denied solely by reason of’ the between-years limitation.”
Dumont v. Hackett, 390 A.2d 374 (R.I. 1978).
· cites it 5× “1956 (1968 Reenactment) §28-44-12. 1 Consequently, he sought an administrative appeal.”
Gesualdi v. Bd. of R. of Dept. of Emp. Sec., 374 A.2d 102 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 5× “1956 (1968 Reenactment) § 28-44-12, as amended by P.L.1973, ch. 180 § 1, and whether he was totally unemployed within the meaning of § 28-42-3(15).”
Sousa v. Providence Subaru Co., 668 A.2d 331 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1979 Reen *336 actment) § 28-44-12 and the Legislature’s intent to forbid an employee from collecting unemployment benefits and workers’ compensation simultaneously.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-44-12(a) — 1 case
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.