Ohio workers waiting on long-delayed pandemic unemployment benefits will have to keep waiting

Yahoo

25-02-2025

Stock photo from Getty Images.
Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook has decided to delay his order directing the state to chase down unemployment benefits from the COVID-19 pandemic. His decision to stay his ruling allows the state to continue its appeal without having to get the ball rolling on securing the outstanding funding.
According to Ohio workers who brought the lawsuit, there could be as much as $900 million in stranded benefits.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The case centers on a round of supplementary benefits from early in the Biden administration. DeWine, like more than a dozen other Republican governors, turned that funding down arguing it would make people less likely to return to work.
But a state appeals court determined Ohio's unemployment statutes require the governor to secure all 'available advantages' and turning down the extra funding violated that charge. Earlier this month, Holbrook ordered DeWine 'take all action necessary' to secure the outstanding unemployment funds. The governor is appealing that decision.
In his order, Judge Holbrook acknowledged, 'while this court believes that the entry of a partial stay is in the best interest of all the parties, it is compelled to act within the bounds of the law.'
Attorneys for the workers had argued even if the judge agreed to stay parts of his ruling, the state should at least begin contacting federal officials about transferring money.
Ohio workers want court to order Gov. DeWine to protect unused unemployment funds
Holbrook's order cited procedural rules and Ohio Supreme Court precedent that effectively gives the state the benefit of the doubt when it comes to appeals. Under Civil Rule 62, government officials or agencies are entitled to a stay while their appeal plays out — in one case Holbrook referenced, 'as a matter of right.'
DeWine contends the appropriate course of action is to stay Holbrook's order because holding off would maintain the status quo. Attorney General Dave Yost, who represents the governor's office in court, argued court rules and Ohio supreme court precedent require a stay.
'The Supreme Court of Ohio has repeatedly interpreted Rule 62 to grant an automatic stay in favor of a state agency or state official,' Yost argued in court filings. 'And it has held that trial courts who refuse to do so err, regardless of the circumstances.'
Yost added that taking a wait-and-see approach to the appeals process is the best way to avoid confusion. It's been three years, Yost explained, since the program in question was shuttered. If the state follows the lower court judge's ruling immediately, but later wins the appeal of that decision, Ohio 'would need to un-enroll from the program yet again.'
Arguing before Judge Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General Ann Yackshaw argued that program enrollment data is now three years out of date, and that restarting the program will cost money. Although the Department of Labor covered administrative costs when the program initially ran, she argued federal officials have sent mixed signals about whether they will continue to do so.
'Denying the stay here would mean that the private taxpayers will be spending potentially millions of dollars to get the pandemic system back up and running and get it updated,' she said.
If it turns out the federal government refuses to cover costs or the state's appeal eventually succeeds, that money would be wasted.
'Once we go down that path, spend this money, we can't un-ring that bell,' she said.
Former Attorney General Marc Dann is representing the Ohioans who lost out on those supplemental benefits. In his brief opposing the state, Dann argued they're relying on a judicial rule when state and federal law should supersede it.
Federal law prioritizes getting unemployment benefits into the hands of workers who need them, and it requires the state to have coordinating language in its statutes as well. The point being that agencies can claw back funding later, but an unemployed worker needs help covering rent and groceries immediately.
'Thus, while the State can appeal this Court's judgment,' Dann's brief argued, 'it cannot use the appeal as a basis to further delay payment of (unemployment) benefits.'
He pointed to a 1970s case out of California in which the state's benefits agency delayed payment while an employer appealed an applicant's eligibility. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected California law as 'invalid and unenforceable' because it conflicted with the federal statute, Dann said.
Like the state, Dann argued, the point of a stay is to maintain the status quo, but with a new presidential administration in place and a budget process under way, 'the country's fiscal affairs are, to say the least, in flux.' The funding necessary to provide the missing benefits is vulnerable to clawback, and he insisted the best way to maintain their availability is to have them in hand.
'A stay should only be for the purpose of maintaining the status quo while the appeal proceeds,' he insisted. 'The only way to safely maintain the status quo would be to order the governor to ask for the money.'
Dann argued that even if Holbrook agreed that a stay was warranted for other parts of his order, like disbursing the lost unemployment funds, he should maintain the portion directing the state to start the process. But even if Holbrook nodded to the wisdom of a partial stay, he declined to take that step, and instead put his order on hold for the time being.
In an emailed statement, Dann wrote 'we are of course going to appeal this decision.'
He went on to note that they are separately trying to get the appeals court to force the governor's hand, and officially request the money from the U.S. Department of Labor.
'Why the governor continues to refuse to ask for and at least hold on to the $900 million in benefits to 330,000 Ohioans is still a mystery,' he said adding, 'we hope the governor will reconsider his decision and ask for the money so that its not reappropriated and lost forever, forcing us to perhaps have to sue the state for the money.'
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE