Unemployment Class Action Lawsuit

Case 1:21-cv-03029-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/24/21 Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MARK GORRES
19052 Highstream Dr.
Germantown, MD 20874
JOHNATHAN SMITH
4211 Wentworth Rd. Civil Action No.:
Gwynn Oak, MD 21207
DEANNE GILLIAM
3703 Springdale Ave.
Baltimore, MD 21216
WILLIAM SANDERS
7700 Colonial Beach Rd.
Pasadena, MD 21122
MATTHEW BOSLEY
400 Symphony Circle, Apt. 337
Hunt Valley, MD 21030
and
MICHAEL EDWARDS
6413 Hilmar Dr., Apt. 204
District Heights, MD 20747
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves

and others similarly situated,
v.
TIFFANY ROBINSON, in her Official

Capacity as Maryland Secretary of Labor,
500 N. Calvert St., Ste. 401
Baltimore, MD 21202
SERVE ON:
Maryland Office of the
Attorney General
200 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Mark Gorres, Johnathan Smith, Deanne Gilliam, William Sanders, Matthew
Bosley, and Michael Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and
through undersigned counsel, allege, upon knowledge to themselves and upon information and
believe as to all other matters, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a class action to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Tiffany
Robinson, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor (“MDL”), to correct Maryland’s
gross and systemic failures to administer unemployment insurance benefits to Marylanders in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution and the federal Social Security Act.
2. Unemployment insurance benefits are intended to provide emergency cash
assistance to workers who lose their jobs, to tide them over until they can find another job.
Benefits are supposed to be available immediately – “as close to the nearest payday following
termination” as possible. Cal. Dep’t of Human Res. Dev. v. Java, 402 U.S. 121, 130 (1971). But
for tens of thousands of Marylanders, the system has failed completely: either their claims for
benefits have languished for months or their benefits have been suddenly cut off for similar
periods without notice or explanation. Data collected by the U.S. Department of Labor shows
that out of the country’s 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands, Maryland currently ranks 44th in determining unemployed Marylanders’ basic eligibility
for unemployment benefits in a timely fashion. Meanwhile, MDL has issued tens of thousands
of unemployment benefit overpayment notices without providing affected Marylanders written
notice of the basis for the alleged overpayment or a meaningful opportunity to contest it –
violating these individuals’ statutory rights and constitutional right to due process of law.
2
3. Plaintiffs are Marylanders who are suffering greatly due to the unconstitutional
and unlawful policies, practices, or customs of Maryland’s unemployment benefits program,
which Defendant is responsible for administering. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and proposed classes of similarly situated individuals to challenge Defendant’s
policies and practices in failing to administer unemployment insurance (“UI”) benefits in a
manner consistent with the United States Constitution and federal law.
4. Plaintiffs bring this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of the
following defined classes:
(1) Delay Class

All individuals who at any time within the three years prior to the filing of
this action, (a) made an application for UI benefits with MDL; (b) filed at
least one weekly claim certification; and (c) neither received benefit
payments, nor an appealable determination denying their claim as to each
potential benefit type, for more than 21 days after the end of the week in
which they filed the application.
(2) Continued Claims Class

All individuals who: (a) have received one or more UI benefit payments
from MDL within the three years prior to the filing of this action; (b) have
filed at least one additional weekly claim for benefits, for which there are
payable benefits; and (c) subsequently stopped receiving benefits for a
period greater than 14 days without receiving either: (i) an appealable
determination or redetermination denying their claim, or (ii) all benefit
payments to which they are entitled.
(3) Overpayment Class

All individuals who have received one or more UI benefit payments from
MDL within the three years prior to the filing of this action and were
subsequently issued an overpayment notice without: (a) notice or
opportunity to be heard prior to any determination that serves as the basis of
the alleged overpayment; or (b) a written determination explaining the
factual and legal basis of the overpayment and the right to appeal.
5. Plaintiffs Mark Gorres, Johnathan Smith, and Deanne Gilliam are representatives
of the Delay Class: they applied for unemployment benefits but they have neither received
3
benefits nor a timely determination denying their claims. There are thousands of other
Marylanders in a similar limbo status – denied access to the benefits they desperately need and
denied a determination of eligibility that would allow an appeal.
6. Plaintiff William Sanders1 is a representative of the Continued Claims Class: he
began receiving unemployment insurance benefits, but his benefits stopped for far more than two
weeks without explanation, an opportunity to be heard, or a timely redetermination. There are
thousands of others in this situation who are likewise denied access to both the benefits they need
and a determination that they could appeal.
7. Plaintiffs William Sanders, Matthew Bosley, and Michael Edwards are
representatives of the Overpayment Class: they applied for and received some unemployment
benefits, but MDL then issued overpayment notices without providing notice of the reason for
the overpayment determination or an opportunity to be heard or appeal. They now owe
thousands of dollars to MDL without an explanation. There are thousands of Marylanders facing
this situation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (declaratory
judgment) because this action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation of
federal statutory and constitutional rights.
1
Plaintiff Sanders is a representative of both the Continued Claims and Overpayment
Classes.
4
9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this complaint occurred within this
District and the Defendant’s primary office is in this District.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Mark Gorres is a resident of Germantown, Montgomery County,
Maryland.
11. Plaintiff Johnathan Smith is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland.
12. Plaintiff Deanne Gilliam is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland.
13. Plaintiff William Sanders is a resident of Pasadena, Ann Arundel County,
Maryland.
14. Plaintiff Matthew Bosley is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland.
15. Plaintiff Michael Edwards is a resident of District Heights, Prince George’s
County, Maryland.
16. Defendant Tiffany Robinson is the Secretary of MDL. At all relevant times, she
has been and is responsible for supervising and administering Maryland’s unemployment
insurance program and for ensuring compliance with federal requirements related to the
determination of eligibility for, and payment of, unemployment benefits. Secretary Robinson
has acted under color of state law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is sued in her
official capacity.
FACTS
I. Maryland’s Unemployment Insurance Program
17. Maryland’s unemployment insurance (“UI”) program, the statutory basis of which
is set out in the Maryland UI Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 8-101 et seq., is part of a
5
cooperative federal-state system established during the Great Depression to provide temporary
emergency cash assistance to workers who lose employment through no fault of their own.
18. Prompt determinations and prompt payment of benefits are core requirements of
the UI system. Congress’s goal in establishing UI was to get these benefits to “the unemployed
worker at the earliest point that is administratively feasible.” Java, 402 U.S. at 135.
Accordingly, the Social Security Act (“SSA”) requires state unemployment programs to maintain
“methods of administration . . . reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment
compensation when due.” 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1). Following the direction of the Supreme Court
in Java, the U.S. Secretary of Labor interpreted the SSA’s “when due” language to require states
to provide “such methods of administration as will reasonably insure the full payment of
unemployment benefits to eligible claimants with the greatest promptness that is administratively
feasible.” 20 C.F.R. § 640.3(a).
19. Regular state UI benefits (“Regular UI”) are paid out of the Maryland UI Trust
Fund, which is kept separate from the state’s general revenues and is used for the sole purpose of
paying UI benefits. In addition to Regular UI, several federal pandemic-related UI benefit
programs are paid through Maryland’s UI program. These include Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance (“PUA”), providing UI to certain individuals who do not qualify for Regular UI and
are unable to continue working due to the pandemic; Pandemic Emergency Unemployment
Compensation (“PEUC”), providing additional weeks of UI benefits to certain individuals;
Mixed Earners Unemployment Compensation (“MEUC”), providing an additional $100 weekly
benefit to recipients of Regular UI or PEUC, but not PUA, who earned income from both
employment and self-employment in the prior year; and Federal Pandemic Unemployment
Compensation (“FPUC”), providing additional UI dollar amounts to certain individuals on top of

6
the amounts they would ordinarily receive each week. The federal pandemic UI programs ended
on September 4, 2021.
20. The process of applying for UI benefits in Maryland involves two basic steps that
are relevant here: (i) filing an initial application for benefits (“initial claim”) and (ii) filing a
separate claim, in the form of a weekly certification, for each week of unemployment
(“continued claim”).
21. MDL currently processes UI claims through an online portal called BEACON,
which it touted as a “fully modernized [online] system which integrates benefits, appeals, and
contributions functionalities.” See Claimant Most Frequently Asked Questions, What is Beacon
2.0?, https://www.dllr.state.md.us/employment/claimfaq.shtml (last visited Nov. 23, 2021).
22. On approximately April 24, 2020, MDL launched its first iteration of BEACON,
which it called BEACON One-Stop, to “allow claimants to file claims for many unemployment
benefit programs through a single application, including those who are eligible for the Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment
Compensation (PEUC) program, and individuals who were previously required to file by phone.”
See Overview of New BEACON One-Stop Application,
https://www.dllr.state.md.us/employment/uibeaconone.shtml (last visited Oct. 31, 2021).
23. On approximately September 20, 2020, MDL launched a new iteration of
BEACON that it called BEACON 2.0. MDL encouraged claimants to file initial claims, weekly
certifications, associated documents, and appeals through that system, including through
BEACON 2.0’s mobile phone application.
24. Both BEACON One-Stop and BEACON 2.0 have been plagued with problems,
including unclickable buttons, hidden functions that are not intuitive to most users, and
7
claimants’ frequent inability to file weekly certifications on which eligibility and payment of
benefits depend. Nonetheless, MDL continues to use BEACON 2.0 to administer its UI
program.
25. Although many claimants lack reliable computer access, the BEACON mobile
phone application has even more limited functionality. For instance, claimants cannot view,
much less complete, “action items” that MDL sends to them using the mobile phone application,
and their ability to see or download correspondence is more limited, assuming they know how to
search for it. This more limited functionality further limits claimants’ ability to perform the steps
necessary to receive benefits.
26. MDL does not provide claimants with ready access to MDL staff who can answer
or resolve questions concerning submission of applications and weekly certifications, status of
claims, or disputes over benefits payments or overpayments. Claimants seeking assistance by
phone typically must call dozens or more times and wait on hold for long periods before they can
reach an MDL representative and, even when they do, the representative typically cannot take
any action beyond “putting in a ticket” or telling the claimant to wait for updates from
adjudicators.
A. Initial Claims
27. MDL takes two steps after an unemployed individual files an initial claim for UI
benefits. First, it issues a “statement of wages and monetary eligibility,” which involves
checking if the individual has enough wages in covered employment during a defined prior period
to qualify for UI and, if so, stating the amount of unemployment compensation available to the
claimant.
8
28. Second, MDL investigates the circumstances of the claimant’s separation from
their last employer. In Maryland, Regular UI is available only to individuals who lose their jobs
through no (or minimal) fault of their own.
29. MDL must promptly determine whether benefits are appropriate, issue a written
determination setting out the facts and law underlying the determination, and permit the claimant
and former employer to appeal. If MDL determines that the claimant is eligible for benefits, it
must begin paying benefits promptly.
30. An Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (“UIPL”) – a type of interpretive
rule with legal effect issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) under authority delegated
by the DOL Secretary2 – makes clear that, to be considered timely under the SSA, a state must
issue determinations in connection with initial claims within 21 days of the first compensable
week, i.e., the week in which the claim is filed. UIPL No. 1145 Attachment at ¶ IV.
B. Continued Claims
31. In addition to the initial claim, UI claimants must also file weekly claims to
certify their ongoing eligibility for UI benefits. This weekly claim certification includes
verification that the claimant is able to work and available for work, as well as information
concerning any earnings the individual may have.
32. Once MDL has begun to make weekly benefit payments to a claimant (known as a
“continued claim series”), a “presumption” of continued eligibility is created. UIPL 04-01 at ¶
2
The Fourth Circuit has held that, as the products of agency expertise, these letters are
“entitled to deference” and “considerable weight.” Watkins v. Cantrell, 736 F.2d 933, 944 (4th
Cir. 1984).
9
7. Accordingly, absent “facts clearly establishing current ineligibility, the State presumes the
claimant’s continued eligibility until it makes a determination otherwise.” Id.
33. If an issue concerning a claimant’s eligibility arises after a claimant has begun to
receive benefits, MDL may stop benefit payments only briefly to review the issue. DOL guidance
provides that a determination of ineligibility must be made no later than 14 days after the date
the issue arises. UIPL No. 04-01 at ¶ 6. In other words, MDL must either issue a determination
within 14 days or must continue to pay the claimed benefits. Id. ¶ 7. If MDL issues a timely
determination that a claimant is ineligible or disqualified, the claimant has a right to appeal.
C. Overpayments
34. MDL uses the term “overpayment” to describe when a claimant receives UI
benefits in excess of the eligibility level that MDL has calculated. An overpayment is not an
indication of fraud or wrongdoing and may in fact be the fault of MDL.
35. Plaintiffs Sanders, Bosley, and Edwards and members of the Overpayment Class
are protected by various procedural safeguards that MDL must follow before it seeks to recover
overpayments from affected individuals.
36. MDL must “conduct an investigation, which includes promptly contacting the
individual to whom the potential overpayment was made and providing the individual a
reasonable amount of time to be heard, before making an official determination that the payment
is improper.” UIPL No. 01-16 (emphasis added). “[W]hen there is a factual conflict between
the information received from an individual and other information received by the agency, from
any source, it is incumbent upon a state to make further contact with the individual, inform him
or her of the conflict, and allow an opportunity for rebuttal.” Id. “States are not required to
conduct a full, formal evidentiary appeal hearing before determining that an individual was
10
overpaid, but they must offer the individual an opportunity to know and rebut the information in
fact finding before issuing a decision that the individual is not eligible and was overpaid.” Id.
During this pre-determination period, MDL must continue to timely make any UI payments that
are otherwise due.
37. For all determinations, including overpayments, MDL must provide the individual
“with a written determination which provides sufficient information to understand the basis for
the determination and how/when an appeal must be filed and must also include the facts on
which the determination is based, the reason for allowing or denying benefits, the legal basis for
the determination, and potential penalties or consequences.” Id.
38. If MDL determines that a claimant was overpaid, it must “provide the individual
an opportunity to appeal.” Id.
39. Because Maryland may waive recovery of overpayments under certain
circumstances, it “must clearly communicate the potential availability of a waiver to individuals
when establishing an overpayment and, if an individual requests a waiver, make an official
determination on the waiver request before initiating overpayment recovery.” Id. Blanket
waivers of federal benefit overpayments may also be provided under certain circumstances.
UIPL No. 20-21.
II. Maryland’s Performance for Initial Claims
40. DOL tracks the performance of state unemployment agencies with respect to
several “Core Measures” considered critical indicators of the state’s overall performance, and
reports performance data at https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/ranking.asp. Reports can be
generated for a specific state or as a ranking of all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

11
41. DOL’s data for the most recent quarter for which data is available – July 1, 2021
through September 30, 2021 – show that Maryland is failing its citizens and falling far behind
other states. Maryland timely determines and pays Maryland claimants’ initial UI benefits just
43.2% of the time, violating the law 56.8% of the time. Out of 53 total jurisdictions, Maryland
ranks 44th.
42. Thousands of Maryland UI claimants are stuck in a limbo status: they have not
received benefit payments, they have not received information about their benefit claims, and
they have not even received a determination denying benefits (which they could appeal). See,
e.g., Mallory Sofastaii, “Maryland extending contract with vendor hired to help unemployment
claimants in ‘adjudication hell,’” WMAR 2 Ne ws , Oct. 19, 2021,
https://www.wmar2news.com/unemploymentguide/md-labor-department-extending-contract-
with-unemployment-adjudication-vendor; Amy Simpson, “Nearly 20,000 pandemic-era
unemployment claims still pending in Maryland,” FOX 45 News, October 4, 2021,
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/backlog-of-nearly-20k-pandemic-era-unemployment-
claims-remains-in-md.
43. In just the third quarter of 2021 alone, Defendant failed to issue timely benefits or
otherwise determine initial claims for more than 8,000 claimants.
44. In part, the delay results from MDL’s decision not to employ or otherwise engage
a sufficient number of adjudicators who are adequately trained and able to review claims and
issue determinations.
45. Many claimants try repeatedly to contact MDL at the phone numbers MDL
provides. Often claimants remain on hold for hours without being connected to anyone. When
MDL does connect them to someone, that person usually tells them that they cannot help because
12
they are not an adjudicator, they cannot connect the claimant with an adjudicator, and they do not
know when an adjudicator will contact the claimant.
46. “In-person” appointments at MDL’s office typically fare no better. Claimants
arrive for their “in-person” appointment only to be placed at a computer for a Zoom call with
someone who similarly cannot help them.
A. Plaintiff Deanne Gilliam
47. In December 2019, Plaintiff Deanne Gilliam began working as a case manager at
a housing organization, helping people with disabilities access subsidized housing.
48. In February 2021, Ms. Gilliam’s employer terminated her employment without
providing her a reason.
49. On or around February 24, 2021, Ms. Gilliam applied for UI benefits through
BEACON.
50. In early March 2021, BEACON locked Ms. Gilliam out of her account without
explanation. Ms. Gilliam called MDL and a representative told her that MDL would look into
why she was being locked out, but in the meantime, she could file her certifications by phone.
51. Ms. Gilliam called MDL every week from March 10, 2021, through May 2, 2021,
to file her weekly certifications, sometimes only after waiting on hold for several hours.
52. On May 10, 2021, when Ms. Gilliam called MDL to file her weekly certification,
an MDL representative told her that her claim was “waiting adjudication” and that
“adjudication” would contact her. This was the first she had heard that her claim was “waiting
adjudication,” although MDL still did not provide her with any information about the basis for an
adjudication.
13
53. On July 21, 2021, Ms. Gilliam received two emails from someone at MDL who
indicated that her application was on hold due to “eligibility issues.” He did not explain what
those issues were and did not indicate whether MDL was doing anything to address the fact that
she was still locked out of BEACON. He asked her to “complete the action item in your beacon
portal to upload your personal identification information” and indicated that such documents
must include “[a]ll four corners of the document.” She emailed the identification documents to
him because she still could not access BEACON.
54. After making many additional phone calls to MDL about BEACON, Ms. Gilliam
scheduled and attended what she was told was an “in-person” appointment at MDL’s office on
Eutaw Street in Baltimore on August 3, 2021. For the “in-person” appointment, Ms. Gilliam
went to MDL’s office and sat at a computer terminal, where she spoke with an MDL
representative via Zoom. The MDL representative told her that MDL locked her account
because it suspected fraud; this was the first she had heard of any issue of “suspected fraud.”
The representative told her that MDL would unlock the account if she could provide her driver’s
license and passport to MDL, so Ms. Gilliam did so. Another MDL representative then told her
that she planned to call Ms. Gilliam’s former employer to gather information needed to resolve
her claim and promised to call Ms. Gilliam within a day; this was the first Ms. Gilliam had heard
that there was any issue with her former employer. But the MDL representative never called Ms.
Gilliam back, and she remained unable to log in to her BEACON account.
55. Despite more communications with MDL via its online chat function, by email,
over the phone, and in one further in-person appointment, Ms. Gilliam remains locked out of her
BEACON account. MDL still has not provided her with either her benefits or a written
determination of eligibility.
14
56. Ms. Gilliam is eligible for UI benefits that she has not received.
57. Although she has been looking for work, Ms. Gilliam has not yet found a new job.
MDL’s delays have left her in a precarious financial condition. She has turned to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) for food for her family, which
includes her nine-year-old granddaughter of whom she has custody. MDL’s delays have also
caused her tremendous stress and prevented her from sleeping, requiring her to take medication
to sleep at night.
B. Plaintiff Mark Gorres
58. Plaintiff Mark Gorres was employed by a hotel renovation company from 2018
until he was laid off in May 2021 due to pandemic-related loss of business. At that time he was
a senior superintendent.
59. In late May 2021, Mr. Gorres applied for UI benefits through BEACON and filed
a weekly certification.
60. Mr. Gorres elected to receive UI-related communications by email, but many such
communications were not emailed to him and appeared only on BEACON’s “correspondence”
page. Finding correspondence in BEACON was not easy for Mr. Gorres, as he did not know that
after clicking correspondence he had to click an empty “search” field to see any correspondence.
Accordingly, he did not see correspondence in BEACON until an MDL representative explained
the process to him over the phone.
61. In mid-June 2021, Mr. Gorres saw two letters from MDL in BEACON. The first
indicated that he was eligible for $0 in Regular UI but did not provide any explanation for this or
any information about his eligibility for federal UI programs such as PUA. The second indicated
that his name, date of birth, or social security number “do[] not match official records” and “no
15
benefits will be paid until your information is corrected and confirmed.” Soon after, he
discovered that MDL had locked him out of his BEACON account.
62. After many calls to MDL, Mr. Gorres was eventually connected to a
representative who told him that MDL found him eligible for $0 in Regular UI because MDL
was investigating his account for fraud. The representative instructed him to re-upload his
driver’s license and social security card, which he did.
63. In early July 2021, MDL unlocked his BEACON account but still did not provide
him with either benefits or an eligibility determination.
64. Mr. Gorres spent the next several months working together with his former
employer to clarify to MDL that he was eligible for Regular UI. Nevertheless, he has still
received neither benefits nor an eligibility determination.
65. Mr. Gorres is eligible for UI benefits that he has not received.
66. MDL’s delays have hurt Mr. Gorres’s finances and required him to borrow money
from family for basic expenses. He has had to turn to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program for food. He is behind on various bills, including his phone bill.
67. MDL’s delays have also hurt Mr. Gorres’s physical health. Mr. Gorres’s medical
conditions include diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. The delays have caused him to miss a
medical appointment and left him unable to pay for some of his medications, worsening his
asthma. MDL’s delays have also hurt his mental health and caused stress and feelings of
depression.
C. Plaintiff Johnathan Smith
68. Plaintiff Johnathan Smith was terminated from his job as the day-shift warehouse
manager at a wholesale meal distributor through no fault of his own in early January 2021.
16
69. Mr. Smith looked for work for two months but was unable to find a job. He
applied for UI benefits through BEACON on March 1, 2021.
70. He also completed a fact-finding questionnaire on the circumstances of his
termination.
71. On March 2, 2021, MDL issued a statement of wages and monetary eligibility
finding him eligible for $430 per week in Regular UI.
72. Mr. Smith dutifully and timely filed his weekly certifications, but MDL neither
paid his benefits nor issued a determination finding him ineligible.
73. In mid-May 2021 Mr. Smith got a new job and stopped doing weekly
certifications.
74. In mid-August 2021, Mr. Smith received a phone call from an adjudicator, who
asked him about the circumstances of his termination. He repeated what he had written in the
fact-finding questionnaire, which was that his employer terminated him for asking why his
employer was changing his position from day-shift warehouse manager to night-shift warehouse
supervisor.
75. On September 2, 2021, MDL issued a benefit determination finding that “the
circumstances surrounding the separation do not warrant a disqualification” from receiving
benefits and “benefits are allowed, if otherwise eligible.” Yet Mr. Smith still has not received
any UI benefits at all for the 12 weeks he is eligible.
76. Although Mr. Smith entered “email” as his communication preference and
provided his email address, he has never received an email from MDL containing or otherwise
alerting him to the official correspondence contained in BEACON.
77. Mr. Smith is eligible for UI benefits that he has not received.
17
78. MDL’s delay in paying Mr. Smith’s benefits has hurt Mr. Smith’s financial
situation and required him to spend down his limited savings to cover expenses like his family’s
mortgage, day care for his four-year-old son, car payments and insurance, and food.
79. MDL’s delay in paying Mr. Smith’s benefits has also caused Mr. Smith to
experience a great deal of stress.
III. Maryland’s Performance for Continuing Claims
80. DOL data show that in September 2021, only 18.9% of continued payments were
made within 14 days of MDL’s identification of an issue and suspension of benefits (i.e., no later
than the end of the week following the week in which an issue arises).
81. In the third quarter of 2021, Defendant failed to timely issue more than 40,000
continued claim weekly benefits; such payments were interrupted or delayed for more than 14
days.
A. Plaintiff William Sanders
82. Plaintiff William Sanders had been a freelance trumpet performer for about 20
years when, around March 2020, his bookings were cancelled and he stopped getting new
bookings because of the pandemic.
83. Mr. Sanders applied for UI through BEACON on April 24, 2020.
84. He elected to receive UI-related communications by email, but MDL did not
consistently send him all communications by email.
85. In late May 2020, Mr. Sanders saw correspondence from MDL indicating he was
ineligible for Regular UI but “may be” eligible for a federal UI program, and on June 26, 2020,
he saw correspondence from MDL indicating that he was eligible for PUA. He started receiving
PUA in late June 2020.

18
86. In August or September 2020, Mr. Sanders noticed that MDL had started reducing
his benefits and describing the reductions as “overpayment offsets.” During some weeks, these
“offsets” left him with no benefits at all. He had not received any overpayment notice. Nor had
he received any appealable determination or redetermination denying or reducing his claim.
87. Mr. Sanders called MDL to ask about the reductions. MDL representatives told
him that they would put in a “ticket” to resolve the issue, but the issue was not resolved.
88. In September 2020, his BEACON account showed an overpayment of about
$8,000 but did not explain the overpayment’s basis or how he could contest or appeal it. He
clicked through BEACON’s “correspondence” page but had not received any related
correspondence.
89. Mr. Sanders submitted an overpayment waiver request on October 7, 2020.
90. MDL continued to reduce Mr. Sanders’s payments based on this “offset” until
approximately March 13, 2021, when MDL locked him out of his BEACON account and
terminated his benefits without notice or explanation.
91. Mr. Sanders called MDL and was eventually connected to a representative who
told him that he had submitted a scan instead of a photo of his identity documentation and
needed to re-upload a photo of his driver’s license and social security card, which he did.
92. Mr. Sanders’s BEACON account remained locked for about 3 months, until mid-
June 2021, during which time he did not receive benefits.
93. When his benefits started again in June 2021, the payments were greatly reduced
to recoup the alleged overpayment.
19
94. This sudden suspension and unexplained reduction of his benefits violates the
prohibition on suspending benefits for more than 14 days and the presumption of continued
eligibility.
95. In mid-June 2021, BEACON displayed a notice indicating that all UI recipients
had to reapply or their benefits would be terminated, so he reapplied.
96. Mr. Sanders emailed MDL during the summer of 2021 to try to resolve the
overpayment. In one response, an MDL representative wrote that MDL was “waiting for the
determination to be completed regarding” his overpayment, demonstrating that MDL had been
collecting on the alleged overpayment without even issuing an overpayment determination.
97. On September 9, 2021, Mr. Sanders saw correspondence in BEACON indicating
that the amount of his overpayment had ballooned to $29,329 – this was the first official
overpayment-related correspondence he had received. The notice stated, “you have been
determined to be overpaid because your claim was withdrawn,” but provided no further
information, and Mr. Sanders did not know what that meant. He had not withdrawn his claim.
98. On September 14, 2021, Mr. Sanders contacted an MDL agent via the online chat
function to explain that he had not “withdrawn” his claim and to ask about the basis for the
finding that he had been overpaid and the status of his waiver request. The agent on the chat said
they would look into the matter, but after an hour had not provided any information and then
stopped responding altogether.
99. Mr. Sanders continued to try to address the issue through emails with MDL. On
October 14, 2021, he received an email from an MDL agent indicating that MDL’s
“overpayment team is still in review of your issue and we are taking the necessary steps to get
20
your issue resolved.” The agent included a waiver form, even though he had submitted a waiver
request a year earlier and had followed up on it repeatedly since.
100. BEACON now shows that Mr. Sanders has an overpayment of over $30,000.
101. Before apparently determining the overpayment(s), MDL did not inform Mr.
Sanders that it was investigating a potential overpayment and did not give him an opportunity to
contest a potential overpayment.
102. MDL has not provided Mr. Sanders with the factual and legal information
necessary to understand the overpayment(s)’ alleged bases, nor has MDL permitted him to
appeal the overpayment(s).
103. MDL’s sudden and prolonged interruption of his benefits as well as its reduction
in his benefit payments to recoup its unadjudicated overpayment(s) has meant that his family –
which includes his partner and nine-year-old son – has not had enough income for their basic
living expenses. They have had to rely on food pantries and Meals on Wheels to eat and have
fallen behind on rent. Mr. Sanders has also had to reduce his driving – even in connection with
looking for new employment – because he cannot pay for gas. MDL’s actions have left him
feeling very anxious and depressed for months on end.
IV. Maryland’s Performance for Overpayments
104. MDL has sent overpayment notices to tens of thousands of Maryland UI
claimants without first contacting claimants so that a claimant may understand and contest the
basis for the alleged overpayment and understand the consequences of a possible overpayment
determination. MDL continues to follow this unlawful practice.
105. MDL’s overpayment notices do not contain a description of the factual and legal
basis for the alleged overpayment sufficient to allow a person to understand or contest it.
21
106. MDL does not permit claimants to appeal an overpayment notice.
107. Despite MDL’s frequent references to alleged fraud, most overpayments result
simply from issues such as MDL belatedly (and without notice) determining that an individual
who received PUA should have received Regular UI or vice versa and involve no fraud or even
fault on the part of the claimant. News reports indicate that, since January 1, 2020, 99.6% of
87,229 overpayment cases deriving from alleged overpayments to PUA claimants were non-
fraudulent. See Mallory Sofastaii, “Maryland now processing waivers for unemployment
claimants who were overpaid,’” WMAR 2 News, Oct. 27, 2021,
https://www.wmar2news.com/unemploymentguide/maryland-now-processing-waivers-for-
unemployment-claimants-who-were-overpaid.
108. MDL has a process to allow claimants to request a waiver of their overpayment,
which may be granted at Defendant’s discretion. The waiver process is not an appeal.
109. Out of 87,229 overpayments, MDL has received only 5,199 waiver requests. Id.
110. Although MDL has the legal authority to issue “blanket waivers” for
overpayments related to federal pandemic UI benefits in circumstances such as when the
individual is eligible for benefits for the week in question and the sole reason for the
overpayment is because of a difference in weekly benefit calculations across different UI
programs, see UIPL No. 20-21, MDL has thus far chosen not to issue blanket waivers.
A. Plaintiff William Sanders
111. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 82 through 103, above.
22
B. Plaintiff Matthew Bosley
112. Plaintiff Matthew Bosley worked at a staffing company from about June 2019
until April 1, 2020, when he was laid off from his staffing manager position along with most of
the rest of his department due to pandemic slowdowns.
113. Although Mr. Bosley promptly applied for UI benefits through MDL’s BEACON
portal, his claim languished for months during which MDL failed to provide him with either
benefits or an explanation of any issue despite Mr. Bosley’s many phone calls.
114. In mid-June 2020, during one such phone call, an MDL representative told Mr.
Bosley that he qualified for PUA and MDL could issue him PUA payments while he waited for
approval of his Regular UI application.
115. Accordingly, Mr. Bosley applied for PUA in late June 2020, was approved, and
finally began receiving UI benefits he needed to pay his bills.
116. Mr. Bosley got a new job in December 2020 and thereafter stopped completing
weekly certifications and stopped receiving benefits.
117. In August 2021, on the advice of a friend to whom MDL had issued a surprise
overpayment notice, Mr. Bosley logged into his BEACON account for the first time in months.
On doing so, he learned that MDL had issued him, solely through BEACON, even though his
benefits had ended the previous December and he had no further reason to log into BEACON,
two overpayment notices in March 2021: one for $26,131 and another for $7,373.
118. Although Mr. Bosley had entered “email” as his communication preference in his
UI application and provided his email address, MDL neither mailed nor emailed these notices or
any related information to him, nor had it sent him a text message alerting him to any issue.
23
119. Before issuing these overpayment notices, MDL did not inform Mr. Bosley that it
was investigating a potential overpayment and did not give him an opportunity to contest a
potential overpayment.
120. MDL still has not provided Mr. Bosley with the factual and legal information
necessary to understand the overpayments’ alleged bases, nor has MDL permitted him to appeal
the overpayments. He has no idea whether he was in fact overpaid or why that may have
occurred.
121. Mr. Bosley submitted a waiver request to MDL in August 2021 but no decision
has been made on the waiver request.
122. Mr. Bosley scheduled an in-person appointment with MDL in September 2021.
When he arrived at MDL’s office, an MDL employee told him to go to a computer terminal. But
that terminal was broken, so an MDL employee told him to go home. Later that day, he received
a call from an MDL employee who told him not to worry about the overpayments and that the
waiver request would be granted.
123. However, on October 5, 2021, Mr. Bosley received a letter from MDL dated
October 1, 2021, indicating that he had “an outstanding debt of $36854.40” (the combined
amount in the two overpayment notices combined plus a 10% fee) and MDL would soon
intercept his tax refund.
124. Mr. Bosley’s struggles with UI – first MDL’s initial failure to pay him anything
for months, and then the inscrutable overpayment notices and MDL’s threats to collect nearly
$40,000 – have caused him to feel extremely nervous and stressed.
24
C. Plaintiff Michael Edwards
125. Plaintiff Michael Edwards worked for a construction contractor as a laborer from
approximately May 2019 to April 2020, as a foreman at a Baltimore hospital doing mold
remediation from approximately June 2020 to September 2020, and for a wastewater treatment
company from approximately September 2020 to November 2020.
126. His last employer laid off Mr. Edwards and several of his coworkers on
November 15, 2020, after a worker tested positive for COVID-19.
127. Mr. Edwards applied for UI benefits on November 22, 2020, through the
BEACON one-stop portal.
128. MDL placed a “fraud hold” on Mr. Edwards’s BEACON account, preventing him
from accessing the account for approximately three months, because MDL asserted a technical
issue with his identity documents. Mr. Edwards re-uploaded his identity documents
approximately five times before MDL lifted the hold in February 2021, allowing him to re-
access BEACON. For approximately four additional months, however, BEACON prevented Mr.
Edwards from filing required weekly certifications.
129. On July 2, 2021, more than seven months after he applied, MDL issued him a
letter through BEACON indicating that he was eligible for PUA in the amount of $176 per week.
130. MDL paid Mr. Edwards UI benefits from July 7, 2021, until September 4, 2021,
but did not pay anything for the seven months between his November 2020 application and
MDL’s July 2021 determination.
131. On October 22, 2021, Mr. Edwards received a Notice of Overpayment in his
BEACON account for $4,760 – the entirety of the PUA benefits MDL had paid him.
25
132. Before issuing this overpayment notice, MDL did not inform Mr. Edwards that it
was investigating a potential overpayment and did not give him an opportunity to contest a
potential overpayment.
133. MDL still has not provided Mr. Edwards with the factual and legal information
necessary to understand the overpayment’s alleged basis, nor has MDL permitted him to appeal
the overpayment.
134. Mr. Edwards filed a request for a waiver of the overpayment in late October or
early November 2021 but has received no response to it.
135. Although Mr. Edwards selected email and text message as his communication
preferences when he applied for UI benefits, he has received only some emails and BEACON
notifications about any issues with his UI benefits, and text message notifications sometimes did
not lead to anything actually present in BEACON.
136. MDL’s actions have caused Mr. Edwards to suffer financially and caused him
extreme stress. He currently is working part-time, but his employment options are restricted to
what is accessible by public transportation because MDL’s actions have left him without
adequate money to renew his auto insurance or vehicle tags. His apartment is also flood
damaged with mold that he cannot afford to repair.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
137. Numerosity. Each of the classes far exceed 30 persons and are so numerous, likely
numbering in the thousands, that joinder of all members is impracticable.
138. Commonality. There are common questions of fact and law that affect all
members of each class, including, by example only and without limitation:
26
a. for the Delay Class, whether MDL’s failure to examine claims and issue a written
appealable determination for more than 21 days after the first compensable week
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and/or the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1).
b. for the Continued Claims Class, whether MDL’s practice or custom of
indefinitely preventing claimants previously found eligible for UI from accessing
either their benefits or an appealable determination of ineligibility violates the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and/or the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1).
c. for the Overpayment Class, whether MDL’s policy, practice, or custom of failing
to provide prior notice and opportunity to be heard on a possible overpayment, or
a written, appealable notice explaining the factual and legal basis for the alleged
overpayment, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and/or the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §
503(a)(3).
139. Typicality. The Plaintiffs seeking to represent the classes present claims that are
typical of the claims of the classes.
a. The representative Plaintiffs seeking to represent the Delay Class and the
members of that class all applied for UI benefits within the three years prior to the
filing of this action, but more than 21 days have passed, and MDL has neither
paid their benefits nor issued a written determination of ineligibility.
b. The representative Plaintiff seeking to represent the Continuing Claims Class and
the members of that class all have received one or more UI benefit payments from
27
MDL within the three years prior to the filing of this action, have filed at least one
additional weekly claim for benefits for which there were benefits paid, and
subsequently stopped receiving benefits for a period greater than 14 days without
receiving either an appealable determination or redetermination denying their
claim or all benefit payments to which they are entitled.
c. The representative Plaintiffs seeking to represent the Overpayment Class and all
members of that class have received one or more UI benefit payments from MDL
within the three years prior to the filing of this action and were subsequently
issued an overpayment notice with neither notice or opportunity to be heard prior
to the determination that serves as the basis of the alleged overpayment, nor a
written determination explaining the factual and legal basis of the overpayment
and the right to appeal.
140. Adequacy. The representative Plaintiffs will adequately represent the classes
because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the classes they seek
to represent. The proposed classes are represented by attorneys from the Public Justice Center
and Gallagher Evelius & Jones LLP who are experienced in class action litigation and regularly
practice in federal court. They will adequately represent the classes.
141. This action may be maintained under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant
acted or failed to act in ways that apply generally to members of each class, so that final
injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to each class as
a whole.
142. Management of this action as a class action does not present any likely
difficulties.
28
143. In the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, it would be desirable to
concentrate the litigation of all class members’ claims in a single forum.
144. In view of the complexities of the issues and expenses of litigation, the separate
claims of individual class members are insufficient to support separate actions.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ALLEGATIONS
145. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each allegation contained in this
Complaint as set forth herein.
146. Many class members have suffered and will continue to suffer economic,
physical, and psychological hardships because of MDL’s failures to timely determine claimants’
eligibility, pay benefits when due, and abide by claimants’ rights with respect to overpayments.
147. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.
148. Plaintiffs and the proposed classes will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief.
149. The balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs’ and the proposed classes’ favor.
150. The injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek is in the public interest.
151. There is no adequate remedy at law.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Denial of Due Process – Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(All Plaintiffs and Classes)
29
153. Plaintiffs Gorres, Smith, and Gilliam and members of the Delay Class assert a
claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their procedural due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
154. Plaintiffs Gorres, Smith, and Gilliam and members of the Delay Class have a
legitimate claim of entitlement to, and therefore a protected property interest in, having their
initial claims for UI benefits promptly examined and determined by MDL, resulting either in
payment of UI benefits or an appealable determination that they are not entitled to benefits.
155. MDL has failed to promptly examine the claims of Plaintiffs Gorres, Smith, and
Gilliam and members of the Delay Class, failed either to pay these individuals’ claims or provide
them with timely written notice containing the particularized factual basis for any alleged
barriers to their receipt of benefits, failed to provide these individuals with a meaningful
opportunity to contest any such alleged barriers, and caused the deprivation of these individuals’
entitlement to have their claims promptly determined in violation of the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
156. Plaintiff Sanders and members of the Continued Claims Class assert a claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their procedural due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
157. Plaintiff Sanders and members of the Continued Claims Class have a property
interest in continued payment of UI benefits for which MDL determined they were eligible.
158. MDL discontinued UI benefits of Plaintiff Sanders and members of the Continued
Claims Class for more than 14 days.
159. MDL failed to provide Plaintiff Sanders and members of the Continued Claims
Class with timely, written, appealable notice containing the particularized factual basis for
30
MDL’s determination to stop their benefits, failed to provide these individuals with a timely,
meaningful opportunity to contest the determination, and caused the deprivation of these
individuals’ due process rights in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their procedural due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
have a property interest in the UI benefits that MDL approved them to receive and in fact paid to
these individuals.
162. MDL issued overpayment notices, if any, to Plaintiffs Sanders, Bosley, and
Edwards and members of the Overpayment Class without first providing these individuals with
notice and opportunity to contest the facts supporting an alleged overpayment.
163. MDL issued overpayment notices, if any, to Plaintiffs Sanders, Bosley, and
Edwards and members of the Overpayment Class by posting such notices in the
“correspondence” section of the BEACON portal but not otherwise delivering notice to these
individuals or alerting them to an overpayment determination.
164. MDL’s overpayment notices failed to provide a particularized factual and legal
basis for MDL’s overpayment determination sufficient to permit Plaintiffs Sanders, Bosley, and
Edwards and members of the Overpayment Class to contest the determination contained in such
notice, and failed to permit these individuals to appeal the determination.
31
165. MDL has sought to recoup – and in some instances has already collected – money
from Plaintiffs Sanders, Bosley, and Edwards and members of the Overpayment Class without
due process.
166. These overpayment policies, practices, or customs violate the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
167. With respect to all Plaintiffs and classes, MDL’s policy, practice, or custom of
only posting benefit determinations, benefit redeterminations, overpayment notices, and other
critical documents in BEACON – rather than delivering these documents to UI claimants by
mail, in claimants’ elected manner of communication, or by notifying claimants by email or text
message that such important documents have been posted in BEACON, violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because such notice is not
reasonably calculated to reach affected claimants.
168. With respect to Plaintiffs Gilliam, Gorres, and Edwards, MDL’s policy, practice,
or custom of flagging claims for fraud when claimants make clerical or technical errors such as
uploading a photograph of their identity document that does not display all four corners of the
document – and, based on this fraud flag, suspending completion of eligibility determinations or
redeterminations, delaying or suspending payment of benefits, and preventing flagged claimants
from accessing their BEACON account and the critical documents located solely therein –
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
32
COUNT II
Failure to Provide Prompt Determinations, Prompt Payments, and Opportunity for Fair
Hearing – 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1) and (3)
(All Plaintiffs and Classes)
170. Plaintiffs Gorres, Smith, and Gilliam and members of the Delay Class filed initial
claims for UI benefits but have received neither written appealable determinations of each
potential UI benefit nor benefit payment for more than 21 days since the last day of the week in
which they filed the initial claim.
171. By denying Plaintiffs Gorres, Smith, and Gilliam and members of the Delay Class
timely determinations or payment of UI benefits to which they are entitled, MDL violated and
continues to violate the SSA’s “when due” clause, 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1).
172. Plaintiff Sanders and members of the Continued Claims Class secured a
“presumption” of continued eligibility when MDL began to make a series of weekly benefit
payments to them.
173. Plaintiff Sanders and members of the Continued Claims Class (a) have received
one or more unemployment benefit payments from MDL; (b) have filed at least one additional
weekly claim for benefits, for which there are benefits due; and (c) subsequently stopped
receiving benefits for a period greater than 14 days without receiving either (i) an appealable
determination or redetermination denying their claims or (ii) all benefit payments to which they
are entitled.
33
174. By halting and failing to promptly restart UI benefit payments to Plaintiff Sanders
and members of the Continued Claims Class, MDL has violated and continues to violate the
SSA’s “when due” provision, 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1).
were entitled to a pre-determination investigation including notice of the factual basis for the
alleged overpayment, timely notice of an interview, and an opportunity to be heard, but MDL
failed to provide these in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1).
176. MDL failed to provide Plaintiffs Sanders, Bosley, and Edwards and members of
the Overpayment Class with a written determination containing sufficient factual and legal
information to understand the basis for the overpayment determination, failed to permit these
individuals to appeal such overpayment determinations, and has sought to recoup – and in some
instances has already collected – money from Plaintiffs Sanders, Bosley, and Edwards and
members of the Overpayment Class, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(3).
177. With respect to Plaintiffs Gilliam, Gorres, and Edwards, MDL’s policy, practice,
or custom of flagging claims for fraud when claimants make clerical or technical errors like
uploading a photograph of their identity document that does not display all four corners of the
document – and, based on this fraud flag, suspending completion of eligibility determinations or
redeterminations and delaying or suspending payment of benefits, violates the SSA’s “when
due” clause, 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the classes they seek to represent,
request the following relief:
34
A. Certify this action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) with
respect to the Classes defined above;
B. Declare that Defendant’s policies, practices, and customs in administering UI benefits
violate 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1) and (a)(3);
C. Declare that Defendant’s policies, practices, and customs in administering UI benefits
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution;
D. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant from continuing the unlawful and
unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs described above;
E. Grant judgment on behalf of Plaintiffs and putative class members as pled herein;
F. Award Plaintiffs’ litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1988; and
G. Grant such other or further relief as may be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted on this 24th day of November, 2021 by:
PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
/s/
Sally Dworak-Fisher, Fed. Bar No. 27321
Monisha Cherayil, Fed. Bar No. 18822
David Rodwin, Fed. Bar No. 18615
Tyra M. Robinson, Fed. Bar No. 21289
201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Telephone: (410) 625-9409
Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org
cherayilm@publicjustice.org
rodwind@publicjustice.org
robinsont@publicjustice.org
35
GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP
/s/
Paul S. Caiola, Fed. Bar No. 2394
218 North Charles Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Telephone: (410) 727-7702
Facsimile: (410) 468-2786
pcaiola@gejlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
36

Unemployment Class Action Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unemployment Class Action Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unemployment Class Action Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:21-cv-03029-GLR Document 1 Filed 11/24/21 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves

TIFFANY ROBINSON, in her Official

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

believe as to all other matters, as follows:

Robinson, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor (“MDL”), to correct Maryland’s

gross and systemic failures to administer unemployment insurance benefits to Marylanders in

2. Unemployment insurance benefits are intended to provide emergency cash

of unemployment benefit overpayment notices without providing affected Marylanders written

and unlawful policies, practices, or customs of Maryland’s unemployment benefits program,

themselves and proposed classes of similarly situated individuals to challenge Defendant’s

policies and practices in failing to administer unemployment insurance (“UI”) benefits in a

following defined classes:

(1) Delay Class

(2) Continued Claims Class

(3) Overpayment Class

denied a determination of eligibility that would allow an appeal.

6. Plaintiff William Sanders1 is a representative of the Continued Claims Class: he

weeks without explanation, an opportunity to be heard, or a timely redetermination. There are

and a determination that they could appeal.

7. Plaintiffs William Sanders, Matthew Bosley, and Michael Edwards are

the overpayment determination or an opportunity to be heard or appeal. They now owe

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

federal statutory and constitutional rights.

9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a

District and the Defendant’s primary office is in this District.

10. Plaintiff Mark Gorres is a resident of Germantown, Montgomery County,

11. Plaintiff Johnathan Smith is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland.

12. Plaintiff Deanne Gilliam is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland.

13. Plaintiff William Sanders is a resident of Pasadena, Ann Arundel County,

14. Plaintiff Matthew Bosley is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland.

15. Plaintiff Michael Edwards is a resident of District Heights, Prince George’s

I. Maryland’s Unemployment Insurance Program

“methods of administration . . . reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment

feasible.” 20 C.F.R. § 640.3(a).

paying UI benefits. In addition to Regular UI, several federal pandemic-related UI benefit

Compensation (“PEUC”), providing additional weeks of UI benefits to certain individuals;

Mixed Earners Unemployment Compensation (“MEUC”), providing an additional $100 weekly

Compensation (“FPUC”), providing additional UI dollar amounts to certain individuals on top of

2.0?, https://www.dllr.state.md.us/employment/claimfaq.shtml (last visited Nov. 23, 2021).

Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment

See Overview of New BEACON One-Stop Application,

https://www.dllr.state.md.us/employment/uibeaconone.shtml (last visited Oct. 31, 2021).

23. On approximately September 20, 2020, MDL launched a new iteration of

BEACON 2.0’s mobile phone application.

necessary to receive benefits.

or resolve questions concerning submission of applications and weekly certifications, status of

claims, or disputes over benefits payments or overpayments. Claimants seeking assistance by

through no (or minimal) fault of their own.

must begin paying benefits promptly.

30. An Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (“UIPL”) – a type of interpretive

concerning any earnings the individual may have.

“continued claim series”), a “presumption” of continued eligibility is created. UIPL 04-01 at ¶

claimant’s continued eligibility until it makes a determination otherwise.” Id.

indication of fraud or wrongdoing and may in fact be the fault of MDL.

overpayments from affected individuals.

are otherwise due.