Can you get unemployment benefits if you're fired or quit your job?
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, eligibility for unemployment benefits varies in both situations, since it's typically based on why an employee was fired. For example, if you were fired because of a violation of your company's policy, you may be ineligible to collect benefits.
Who is Lucy Guo, youngest 'self-made' billionaire in new Forbes ranking?
If you quit your job, you most likely won't be eligible for unemployment benefits. However, it's not always that simple.
Unemployment benefits are run by the federal government and the state where you live and work. They are meant to offer short-term help for those unemployed and searching for a new role. The state decides how much you can receive, who can receive benefits and how long those benefits will last.
In many states, eligible workers receive benefits for up to 26 weeks while looking for another job. However, nine states offer less than 26 weeks of benefits, and two states offer more than 26 weeks of benefits. Four states offer extended benefits programs.
Americans haven't cooked this much at home since 2020: Campbell's CEO
Unemployment programs are funded by businesses through the Federal Unemployment Tax Act and the State Unemployment Tax Act.
Being unemployed doesn't mean you're eligible to receive benefits. Typically, the reason you were fired determines eligibility. If you were fired for reasons out of your control, you're likely eligible. These can include:
Layoffs
Downsizing
No available work
Furlough (like those due to the coronavirus pandemic)
You must also meet work and wage requirements, as well as any additional requirements from your state. If you were fired for instances like theft or too many unexcused absences, you may not be eligible for benefits.
Social Security: Study shows where seniors could face longest drive times to offices
Other reasons for not being eligible could include:
Failing a drug test
Coming to work intoxicated
Safety violations
Sexual harassment
Causing abuse or harm to fellow employees
Intentionally violating a company's policy (in some states)
If you quit your job, you likely will not receive unemployment benefits. However, if you can show that you had a good reason to quit, like harassment or an unsafe working environment, you could still be eligible.
Most employment terms are 'at will,' meaning you can be fired at any time for any legal reason. However, you still have rights, including the right to receive unemployment benefits. You also have the right to receive your final payment and be paid severance if it is in your contract.
Families earning under $200K can only afford to live comfortably in 7 states: Report
If you're fired, you should also be offered continued health care coverage through COBRA. If your firing is part of a larger layoff or the closing of a business, then you also have the right to be given advanced notice.
Growing number of Americans say tipping culture is 'out of control'
If an employer thinks your unemployment benefits claim is invalid or misleading, they can contest it. When you make a claim with your state, your former employer will receive a notice either from the state itself or the federal agency. That claim will include details of your termination.
An employer then decides whether to accept or contest the claim. If you believe your claim is wrongly contested, you can fight it.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump stuns Wall Street, Washington with controversial BLS nominee
President Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is breaking the mold of his predecessors and causing alarm among economists of all stripes Commissioners of the BLS are usually academics or career civil servants with decades of experience in statistics and economics. But EJ Antoni, who Trump nominated to lead the agency after firing former BLS chief Erika McEntarfer on the heels of a disappointing jobs report earlier this month, has more bona fides as a pundit and conservative advocate than he does as a statistician. The choice of Antoni to lead a statistical division whose data is scrutinized by businesses and governments all over the world is getting major backlash from the economics profession and sparking concerns about the politicization of bedrock-level economic data. 'E.J. Antoni is completely unqualified to be BLS Commissioner,' Harvard University economist Jason Furman, who worked for the Obama administration, wrote on social media. 'He is an extreme partisan and does not have any relevant experience.' Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, echoed Furman's words. 'He's utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets,' he told the Washington Post. Who is EJ Antoni? Antoni has been the chief economist of the Heritage Foundation's center on the federal budget for the past four months. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank that produced the wide-ranging Project 2025 policy agenda. Project 2025 took aim at the 'permanent political class' in Washington, and many of its budget-cutting recommendations have been carried out by the Trump administration. He held two research fellowships at Heritage prior to his current position and two other fellowships at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group led by billionaire Steve Forbes. Antoni submitted his doctoral dissertation in 2020, in which he defends positions associated with 'supply-side economics,' a conservative policy doctrine that became popular in the 1980s. Besides stints as an adjunct at a community college and as an instructor at his alma mater of Northern Illinois University, he's held no other academic posts. By comparison, McEntarfer worked for 20 years as an economist with the Census Bureau. Her predecessor William Beach was the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee, and his predecessor Erica Groshen spent 20 years as an economist at the New York Federal Reserve and referees for about a dozen academic journals. Antoni is a frequent guest on a number of conservative media outlets. While BLS makes it a point to produce — rather than interpret — economic data, Antoni has been hitting talking points on recent BLS releases in media appearances, a stark contrast with the agency's typical cut-and-dry communications. Discussing the dismal July jobs report, he emphasized job growth among native-born Americans on former Trump adviser Steven Bannon's internet podcast. 'There was some good news in the report, too, that we should definitely highlight,' he said. 'All of the net job growth over the last 12 months has gone to native-born Americans.' The Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for an interview with Antoni. Backlash from economists Economists aren't mincing their words about Antoni's credentials. One economist at the University of Wisconsin refuted one of Antoni's recent papers, showing it contained basic statistical mistakes and finding that it wasn't possible to replicate its results — an academic kiss of death. Alan Cole, an economist with the conservative Tax Foundation think tank, described the errors in the paper as 'stunning.' 'Stunning errors in a tweet are bad, but worse to do it in long form, where there's more time and effort involved,' he wrote on social media. Conservative economists have also been blasting the firing of McEntarfer after the July jobs report showed that a meager 106,000 jobs have been added to the economy since May. Trump accused the agency — without any evidence — of producing 'rigged' data, which many economists have said is poppycock. 'The totally groundless firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer … sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau,' William Beach, a Trump appointee who preceded McEntarfer as head of the BLS, wrote online. Warnings to senators Antoni is expected to be easily confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate after he appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which will also need to approve his nomination. Antoni's critics are waging a long-shot effort to turn GOP members of the committee against the nominee ahead of his likely confirmation. Friends of the BLS, a group that advocates for the agency and that's chaired by Beach and his predecessor Erica Groshen, called out Antoni in a statement Wednesday, describing the debate about his nomination as 'contentious.' 'BLS now … faces the additional challenge of a contentious debate over the nominee for the next Commissioner, Dr. EJ Antoni,' they said. Groshen told The Hill they hope the nomination process will be 'very thorough.' 'The responsibility of the Senate HELP committee … is particularly important at this time,' she added. The Hill reached out to all Republican members of the committee about Antoni's qualifications, most of whom didn't respond. A representative for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she wouldn't be commenting on the nomination prior to the hearing. What would politicized labor data look like? Antoni has already floated some massive changes to BLS data releases, including canceling regular monthly reports in favor of quarterly releases — a change that would alter the entire cadence of economic data output and affect nearly every private and public sector model of the U.S. economy. He told Fox News before his nomination that 'the BLS should suspend issuing the monthly jobs reports, but keep publishing more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data,' since BLS data is often subject to revision. Former BLS chiefs told The Hill they're keeping an eye on a regulatory standard known as OMB Directive No. 3, which governs the rules of BLS releases, for any sign that agency data could become politicized. 'Violations of that would be very unusual, and therefore indicative of something unusual underneath it,' Groshen said. Antoni has delivered some conflicting remarks on BLS data revisions, attributing them to 'incompetent' leadership under McEntarfer during his appearance on Bannon's podcast and then noting later that the problems pre-dated her time as agency commissioner. 'I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems,' he said before adding that 'this is not a problem unique to the Trump administration.' Real problems with BLS data In fact, the downward revisions in the July jobs report that prompted Trump's firing of McEntarfer were due to the late reporting of educational employment figures by state and local governments, along with the more pronounced seasonal effects in that sector since teachers don't work in the summer. That's fairly typical for the agency, current and former employees of the BLS told The Hill. Political narratives aside, the BLS has seen a substantial drop in survey response rates in the aftermath of the pandemic, a decline that has made the data less reliable, but that has affected statistical agencies in a number of countries beyond the U.S. 'This is not a failure of the BLS … This is a phenomenon that is worldwide,' Erica Groshen told The Hill. 'This is a slow-moving train wreck,' she added, exhorting CEOs across the economy to make a priority of the surveys. 'There is no silver bullet. Believe me – people have been looking for it for a long time.' Economists have been lamenting the survey response rates for years. 'Like Orwellian newspeak, [the U.S. employment report] can often mean the reverse of what it says it means. The household and establishment surveys portray contrasting pictures of employment (and both have shocking response rates),' UBS economist Paul Donovan wrote earlier this month, having noted declines since 2023.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Just Received Its First Data Point to Determine the 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA). Here's Where Things Stand Now.
Key Points The annual Social Security COLA is based on a specific measure of inflation from July, August, and September. The first data point might have come in lower than expected, but experts still predict a bigger COLA than 2025. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › A growing number of retirees are heavily reliant on Social Security to make ends meet. In the most recent iteration of an annual poll from Gallup, 62% of retirees said Social Security is a major source of income for them. That's up from 60% last year. Another 24% said their monthly benefits represent a minor (although meaningful) source of income in retirement. For any retiree using Social Security payments as a key factor in planning their budgets, few things have a bigger impact on their spending plans than the annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA. The COLA is designed to help Social Security payments keep up with the rising cost of goods and services, but many seniors have suffered in recent years as inflation has pushed prices higher on just about everything. While there is still two months until the official COLA for 2026 will be available, retirees just received the first data point necessary to determine how much they will receive next year. Here's where things stand now. How the government calculates the COLA Before diving into the latest data point, it's important to understand exactly how the Social Security Administration (SSA) calculates the COLA each year. Many people know the COLA is tied to inflation, but there's a very specific measure of inflation used to determine the exact number. It's called the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The index is calculated monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics based on surveys of prices taken throughout the nation. There are over 200 price categories catalogued, and each receives a specified weight in calculating the total index. To determine the COLA, the SSA only looks at CPI-W readings from the third quarter (July through September). The year-over-year increase in the average CPI-W from those three months becomes the COLA for the following year. The BLS published the July CPI numbers on Aug. 12. That's the first data point necessary to determine next year's COLA. The August CPI numbers will come out on Sept. 11, and the September numbers will come out on Oct. 15. At that point, all of the necessary data will be available to calculate the 2026 COLA. Here's where the 2026 COLA stands now The July CPI report came in lower than expected. The commonly reported CPI-U came in 2.7% higher than last year. However, core CPI, which removes volatile food and gas prices, came in above expectations, increasing 3.1% year over year. A higher core CPI number suggests seniors could face significant pressure in keeping up with rising costs next year, as food and fuel prices do eventually move higher. The CPI-W increased 2.5% year over year, reaching 316.349. That's a month-over-month increase of 0.1%. Using the most recent month-over-month increase in inflation to model the next two months of CPI-W numbers, the 2026 COLA will come in around 2.6%. Using the average increase over the last three months, it'll come in around 2.7%. Both numbers are an increase from the 2025 COLA of 2.5%. There are good reasons to expect inflation to come in higher over the next two months. Specifically, the Trump tariffs announced in April have mostly been delayed until August. While businesses have worked to stockpile inventory ahead of the tariffs in order to keep their pricing low, they will eventually have to factor in the increased tax on imports and raise pricing if they want to maintain their profit margins. The Senior Citizens League estimates next year's COLA will be 2.7%, raising it from their 2.6% estimate last month. Independent analyst Mary Johnson also expects a 2.7% COLA for next year in light of the most recent CPI-W data. The Social Security Board of Trustees put its estimate at 2.7% when it released its annual report in June. As those estimates converge, it's likely the best guess. The data and trends support a 2.7% COLA for 2026, and unless there's a massive disruption in pricing over the next eight weeks, that's what retirees should expect to see. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Just Received Its First Data Point to Determine the 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA). Here's Where Things Stand Now. was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Russiagate scandal demands prosecutions, overhaul of the FBI and CIA
Once again, newly released documents and damning evidence conclusively substantiate what many Americans have long suspected. Russiagate was a conspiracy — hatched, implemented and relentlessly promoted by top officials in the CIA, FBI and across the Obama-Biden-Clinton political machine to rig a presidential election and undermine a duly elected president. It also corrupted the very institutions essential to protecting American liberty. Despite the mountain of evidence and exhaustive investigations, those responsible for this travesty remain unpunished. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, among other intelligence officials, have lied to Congress and the American public about their reliance on the discredited Steele dossier — a report paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC — while simultaneously engineering different versions of critical intelligence assessments to cover their tracks. Although the intelligence community and its leaders publicly maintained that the notorious dossier played no role in the official assessment concerning ' Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,' newly declassified oversight reviews flatly contradict these claims. The record shows that Brennan and Clapper prepared a classified, compartmented version of the assessment specifically for President Obama and senior officials, which cited the dossier to bolster key judgments about Russian election interference. Later, when sanitized versions were released to Congress and the public, all references to the dossier had been scrubbed away. Special Counsel John Durham's investigation verified that Brennan, Clapper, then-Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey were all briefed, even before the 2016 election, on the Clinton campaign's plan to concoct a false Trump-Russia narrative. Still, the FBI — with full knowledge that the Steele dossier was riddled with falsehoods — deployed it to secure baseless FISA warrants against Trump advisor Carter Page and launch the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (the FBI'S codename for the operation), with the intent of sabotaging Trump's campaign and subsequent presidency. Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act litigation exposed much of this corruption years before the Durham report. Court-obtained documents, such as the 'electronic communication' that launched Crossfire Hurricane, revealed the flimsy and third-hand nature of the intelligence used as pretext. Other records uncovered by Judicial Watch showed how high-ranking Justice Department officials, such as Bruce Ohr, maintained close ties with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS, acting as a conduit for anti-Trump smears even after Steele was fired as an informant by the FBI for leaking to the media. Ohr's communications disclosed that so-called 'intelligence' on Trump-Russia ties was being laundered to the Clinton campaign and other government insiders. It goes deeper. Declassified supplements to the Durham report lay out how activists tied to George Soros' Open Society Foundations, aided by operatives within the Obama FBI and intelligence community, sought to plant and spread the bogus narrative about Trump colluding with Russia even before the FBI operations officially began. Hacked emails and foreign intelligence corroborated this extraordinary collusion between campaign operatives, federal law enforcement, and the media — a clear case of government being weaponized for partisan ends. Leaders at the FBI — Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok — and at the CIA, and their superiors in the Obama White House, knew precisely what was unfolding. They were using the intelligence community's credibility to spread what they knew to be their own fiction as if it were truth. Yet, they pressed ahead anyway, smearing Trump and creating excuses to spy on his campaign. Their collusion made a mockery of the rule of law, resulting in illegal warrants, fabricated evidence, and years of phony investigations. Recent Judicial Watch lawsuits have further exposed how shamelessly courts and legal systems were deceived, with virtually no oversight or meaningful hearings. For all it revealed, the Durham investigation resulted in one modest plea deal and few and failed prosecutions. If no one is held to account, Americans' confidence in government will be shaken by the toxic message that in Washington, the bigger the crime, the less likely it is to be punished. The FBI and Justice Department, and their enablers in the Obama White House, engineered the most egregious abuse of power and corruption in modern American history. The public deserves justice — not just in the form of reports and hearings, but through criminal prosecution of the officials who orchestrated and covered up this conspiracy. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and every enabler involved must be brought before a court of law. No spin can excuse years of perjury, abuse, and violations of civil liberties. It is not enough to claim that 'mistakes were made' or offer platitudes about trust. Laws were broken. Rights were trampled. Our democracy was threatened. News of criminal referrals for perjury by some of the players is a good start, but only that. Nor will prosecution alone suffice. The FBI and CIA need fundamental reform. Trump's recent executive orders aimed at ending the 'weaponization of government' are steps in the right direction. These agencies have proven incapable of policing themselves. From rubber-stamp FISA courts to politicized counterintelligence and persecution of whistleblowers, these agencies are built on unaccountable power. Significantly cutting back the Justice Department and dismantling the FBI should be on the table. America is a republic, not a banana republic. It's time for accountability, reform and a sharp reminder to the deep state: in America, the people are sovereign, not unelected bureaucrats.
