Stein v. Department of Employment Security
2017 IL App (3d) 160335
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Stein worked for Caterpillar until May 3, 2013; after an April 2013 shoulder injury his duties were reduced and he was laid off.
- He applied for unemployment benefits; the Agency initially found him medically unable to work retroactive to May 5, 2013, and denied benefits.
- Multiple administrative hearings occurred (Nov. 2013 misconnected hearing dismissed and later reinstated; Mar. 2014 hearing; June 11, 2014 hearing) with remands by the Board to allow consideration of job-search evidence.
- Stein ultimately submitted a job-search log showing two employer contacts per week from May 7 to Aug. 5, 2013 (27 inquiries: 25 in Canton, 2 in Farmington; no follow-ups; most employers said they were not hiring).
- The ALJ and Board found the job search perfunctory/meager and denied benefits for failure to be "actively seeking work;" the Board also rejected Stein’s claim that a Department employee told him 2–3 contacts per week were adequate.
- The circuit court affirmed the Board; Stein appealed. The appellate court reviewed for clear error and confirmed the Board’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were administrative procedural missteps reversible error? | Stein: procedural errors and remands show process was "preordained" and mandate reversal. | Agency: proper procedures were followed; claimant ultimately had hearings and offered evidence. | Forfeited/answered against Stein — argument forfeited for lack of citation; no reversible error shown. |
| Was Stein "actively seeking work" under the Unemployment Insurance Act? | Stein: two inquiries weekly and his job-search log show active efforts; he was told by a Department employee that 2–3 contacts/week sufficed. | Agency: search was meager in quantity and quality (mostly local, no follow-ups, no evidence he could perform jobs); alleged advice by employee cannot estop Agency. | Held: Board’s denial affirmed — job search not reasonably calculated to return him to labor force; estoppel claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352 (appellate forfeiture for lack of cited authority)
- Deford-Goff v. Department of Public Aid, 281 Ill. App. 3d 888 (unauthorized ministerial acts by state agents do not generally bind the state for equitable estoppel)
- Halleck v. County of Cook, 264 Ill. App. 3d 887 (similar limits on estoppel against government for unauthorized acts)
- Ferretti v. Department of Labor, 115 Ill. 2d 347 (applicant’s interactions with unemployment office do not automatically establish guidance about adequacy of job search)
- Brown v. Board of Review, 8 Ill. App. 3d 19 (burden on claimant to prove eligibility for unemployment benefits)