Castaneda v. Department of Employment Security, 1-12-40457

Julia Castaneda, a former Walmart cashier, was fired for violating attendance policies in March 2022 and initially denied unemployment benefits for misconduct.
The Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) mailed her a determination letter stating she could appeal but must continue to certify for benefits while her appeal was pending.
Castaneda appealed the misconduct finding, but did not certify for benefits during the appeal process.
After a favorable appeal ruling in October 2022, she sought backdated benefits for the period she failed to certify, explaining she was unaware of the requirement and citing a bad memory.
IDES refused the backdated certification because she did not meet any listed Code exceptions (e.g., employer misconduct, agency error, unawareness of rights), and this decision was upheld by the Board; the circuit court, however, reversed for Castaneda, interpreting "unawareness" subjectively.
The state appealed; Castaneda did not file a brief on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Castaneda qualified for late filing of certifications under Code § 2720.120(b)	Castaneda did not know she had to certify during her appeal and argued "unawareness" applied	IDES argued she received clear instructions, thus was not "unaware" under the law	Castaneda was not "unaware"; she received and read letters; denial of late filing affirmed
Whether "unawareness" should be applied subjectively or objectively	Circuit court accepted a subjective standard for "unawareness" of rights	IDES argued the correct standard is objective and based on notice provided	Appellate court adopted objective standard, defers to agency interpretation
Whether failure to meet other exceptions for late certification applied (agency/employer failure, coercion, or other circumstances)	Castaneda offered no evidence of agency or employer fault, or other control-limiting circumstances	IDES argued no evidence supported these exceptions and instructions were adequate	No exceptions applied; claimant's own mistake insufficient for late filing
Whether the Board's decision was clearly erroneous	Circuit court found error, noting claimant's "unawareness"; interpreted evidence differently	IDES argued Board's decision was not clearly erroneous based on record	Board's findings upheld under deferential standard; circuit court reversed

AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill.2d 380 (standard for "clearly erroneous" agency decisions)
Universal Sec. Corp. v. Department of Employment Sec., 2015 IL App (1st) 133886 (scope of appellate review focuses on Board, not lower tribunals)
Cinkus v. Vill. Of Stickney Mun. Officers Elec. Bd., 228 Ill. 2d 200 (standard of review for mixed questions in administrative review)
Childress v. Department of Employment Security, 405 Ill. App. 3d 939 (burden on claimant to show unemployment benefit eligibility)