Warning: file_put_contents(/home/customer/www/dailylegalbriefing.com/public_html/wp-content/uploads/wpo/images/wpo_logo_small.png.webp): failed to open stream: Disk quota exceeded in /home/customer/www/dailylegalbriefing.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-optimize/vendor/rosell-dk/webp-convert/src/Convert/Converters/Gd.php on line 428
When states cut off COVID benefits early, U.S. must pay – lawsuit – Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
Warning: unlink(/tmp/jnewslibrary-tYE3VS.tmp): No such file or directory in /home/customer/www/dailylegalbriefing.com/public_html/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-filesystem-ftpext.php on line 142
Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
  • Home
  • Hot Topics
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Big Law
  • Small Law
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
No Result
View All Result
Home Breaking

When states cut off COVID benefits early, U.S. must pay – lawsuit

Daily Legal Briefing by Daily Legal Briefing
November 23, 2021
in Breaking
0
When states cut off COVID benefits early, U.S. must pay – lawsuit
5
SHARES
41
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


FILE PHOTO: The United States Department of Labor is seen in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 30, 2020. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

  • Lawsuit seeks to represent residents of 20 GOP-led states
  • Plaintiffs say COVID relief law mandates benefits

The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.

(Reuters) – The U.S. government has been hit with two proposed class actions seeking to hold it responsible for paying unemployment benefits under last year’s COVID-19 relief law to residents of states that ended the benefits early.

The lawsuits, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and the Court of Federal Claims, both say the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was enacted in March 2020, made payments to people who lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic mandatory under the law, even if state governments decided to stop administering them.

The U.S. Department of Labor, which oversaw the so-called Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) at the federal level, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com

Twenty-five Republican-controlled states, including Texas, Georgia and Iowa, cut off some form of COVID relief benefits before they were set to end under the CARES Act in September. Twenty of the states cut off PUA, according to the lawsuits.

While workers have sued some of those states, Danny Rosenthal of James & Hoffman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he believed Monday’s lawsuit was the first seeking recovery from the federal government.

The plaintiffs brought their cases under the federal Tucker Act, which waives the government’s usual sovereign immunity from being sued in cases where plaintiffs claim that they are owed mandatory payment under a federal statute.

They say that, under the CARES Act, the federal government “shall provide” the unemployment funds. While the law stated that the program was to be managed through agreements with states that have an “adequate system” for administering payments, it did not remove the federal government’s obligation to beneficiaries in states without such a system.

“In describing the Secretary of Labor’s obligation to provide PUA payments, the language of the CARES Act is clear and mandatory,” both lawsuits said. “It does not grant discretion to the Secretary or states to deny PUA payments guaranteed by the Act to qualified individuals.”

The plaintiffs are seeking judgments against the government for the amount all class members would have received if their benefits had not been cut off early. The proposed classes likely includes hundreds of thousands of people, according to the complaints.

The plaintiffs did not say how much money they were seeking for the class. All of the individual plaintiffs are seeking under $10,000.

The cases are Creager Ireland v. United States, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, No. 21-cv-01049, and Beaty v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 21-cv-02195.

For plaintiffs: Anna Bocchini of Equal Justice Center; Chris Williams and Sheila Maddali of National Legal Advocacy Network; Danny Rosenthal and Ryan Griffin of James & Hoffman; and Michael Persoon of Despres, Schwartz and Geoghegan

For the government: not immediately available

Read more:

Half of U.S. states to end Biden-backed pandemic unemployment early

White House: U.S. states to decide whether to extend lapsed jobless benefits

Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com

Brendan Pierson

Brendan Pierson reports on product liability litigation and on all areas of health care law. He can be reached at brendan.pierson@thomsonreuters.com.



Click to Read Original Article

Previous Post

Biglaw’s Choices In The War For Talent: More Flexibility Or More Money

Next Post

Lawyer is suspended for texting witness during phone deposition; how did opposing counsel find out?

Daily Legal Briefing

Daily Legal Briefing

Related Posts

More U.S. colleges turn to law schools to find their next president
Breaking

More U.S. colleges turn to law schools to find their next president

by Daily Legal Briefing
December 8, 2021
NLRB considering overhaul of test for approving smaller unions
Breaking

NLRB considering overhaul of test for approving smaller unions

by Daily Legal Briefing
December 8, 2021
Cravath plays bonus catch-up as larger law firm payouts spread
Breaking

Cravath plays bonus catch-up as larger law firm payouts spread

by Daily Legal Briefing
December 8, 2021
Mass tort TV ads in serious slump as pandemic drags on
Breaking

Mass tort TV ads in serious slump as pandemic drags on

by Daily Legal Briefing
December 8, 2021
Prosecutors call ex-boyfriend of Ghislaine Maxwell accuser to testify at trial
Breaking

Prosecutors call ex-boyfriend of Ghislaine Maxwell accuser to testify at trial

by Daily Legal Briefing
December 8, 2021
Next Post
Lawyer is suspended for texting witness during phone deposition; how did opposing counsel find out?

Lawyer is suspended for texting witness during phone deposition; how did opposing counsel find out?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Premium Content

White House confirms potential Supreme Court nominee as the short list grows

Potential SCOTUS nominee Childs helps others succeed; is ‘typical corporate lawyer’ work a problem?

February 4, 2022
CEOs of Clio, Paradigm and ProfitSolv React to News of LawPay’s Acquisition of MyCase

CEOs of Clio, Paradigm and ProfitSolv React to News of LawPay’s Acquisition of MyCase

June 17, 2022

A Complete Guide To Managing Your Trust Account

February 4, 2022

Browse by Category

  • Big Law
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Hot Topics
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
  • Small Law

About US

Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing.
Online coverage of breaking legal news and current law headlines from around the US. Top stories, videos, insight, and in-depth analysis.

Categories

  • Big Law
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Hot Topics
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
  • Small Law

Recent Updates

  • With Layoffs Lurking, Does Biglaw Pass The Vibe Check?
  • A Law Firm That’s A ‘Big Happy Family’ Is A Red Flag
  • Need To Go To Trial? The Best Trial Practices Out There

© 2021 Daily Legal Briefing | Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines

No Result
View All Result
  • Contact Us
  • Home

© 2021 Daily Legal Briefing | Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?

Warning: unlink(/tmp/jnewsfirstload-JOk940.tmp): No such file or directory in /home/customer/www/dailylegalbriefing.com/public_html/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-filesystem-ftpext.php on line 142