Sub teacher, at fault payback

[u/eeisner]

I assume we're boned here but looking to get some advice from this crowd.

My wife was a teacher working at an alternative private school. Over the summer she was notified that her role was eliminated due to drops in enrollment. She began filing for unemployment in September when the next school year began.

Also in September, she interviewed for and was accepted as a sub at a few private schools in the area. These jobs were either accepted through an online portal or via email if the schools reached out to her directly. Typically, the jobs posted online were gone very quickly so she only had so much work available.

The school she worked at the most let her go in November, so she applied for and was accepted into the Seattle Public Schools sub pool. These jobs were also made available via an online portal, and most of the jobs within her skillset, experience, and reasonable commute would be gone fairly quickly, though she took every job she could in order to satisfy the minimum hours worked requirement from the district.

In January, she started an online, asynchronous graduate degree program and continued to work as she could, prioritizing (maybe to my frustration) work over school, which meant school would get done over the weekends on weeks she was able to work.

Fast forward to a week or two ago...

She received a letter from the state saying she was not able and available to work at least 40 hours each week during the usual work times for her occupation, violated RCW 50.20.010, RCW 50.20.130, WAC 192-140-200 and WAC 192-170-010, and must pay back $7200 in payments between November and her last payment in March, or every payment she received since she started working at SPS.

My understanding is:

1. Subs are eligible for unemployment

2. Students can be eligible for unemployment, so long as school is not their full-time and the individual remains available and actively seeking work.

My wife reported her student status in the weekly claim portal however that is done (I have not seen the portal/form she submitted weekly), accurately reported all wages earned when subbing, and continued to receive payments until eligibility expired.

SPS/TALX UCM SERVICES INC challenged her eligibility, hence the at fault ruling and repayment.

We filed an appeal and will have that scheduled shortly. Thankfully, we can afford the repayment if needed but I'd like a) to have the at-fault ruling overturned, and b) have the payback amount either reduced or waived completely.

Again, I think we're boned either way but any advice would be greatly appreciated, or at least contextualizing the ruling from the state dating back to November. I can understand a ruling saying she was unable to work once starting school in January, and clarifying to the state that her program is asynchronous and did not interfere with her ability to work, but asking for back payment prior to her being a student is asinine.

Thanks!

[u/Jcarlough]

What’s the answer to “was she ready, willing, and able to work 40 hours per week?”

Nothing you shared seems relevant to the actual reason for the ineligibility determination.

[u/eeisner → u/Jcarlough]

Well, her program is asynchronous and does not interfere with her ability to accept work as needed.

What I don't understand is: 1. She had been reporting she was a student the whole time and the state continued to pay her 2. The state is asking for back pay to dates prior to her being a student.

[u/Jcarlough → u/eeisner]

Honest question - why do you believe reporting being a student matters?

Because it doesn’t change the requirement of “being ready, willing, and able to work the required hours to receive unemployment.”

The repayment isn’t actually based on her student status because again - the issue is…”being ready, willing, and able the minimum required hours.”

What proof does she have of her regularly seeking FT employment?

Unfortunately, and apologies for the assumption, but it appears she/you thought that all she had to do was continue the sub work and taking sub jobs as they came available + worked for her. As such, she was not seeking employment that met the hourly requirement and was not eligible for the unemployment received.

*If* she was seeking employment that would make her eligible for unemployment then that should have been reported - was it?

[u/eeisner → u/Jcarlough]

My understanding is that being a student can impact your eligibility for ESD if the state determines that your school schedule inhibits your ability to work a full-time job.

If the State is ruling repayment of benefits because they determined her status as a student disqualified her from working full-time, that matters.

If the State is ruling repayment of benefits because my wife inputted finding jobs as a sub as not sufficient for seeking employment, then my wife is at fault, the State's ruling is accurate, and as I said in my initial post, we're boned and I need to help her learn why.

The ruling from the State, quoted below, seems to be in line with the former, not the later.

You are not able and available to work at least 40 hours each week during the usual work times for your occupation.

We received information that you were not able or available to work. The law says you must be able and available to work to be eligible for benefits. That means you must be able and available to work on the days and hours usual for your type of work.

It's the able and available language that leads me to assume the ruling was based on status as a student and therefore not able to work during school hours, not your point of not actively seeking employment.

[u/red_nene10]

I am guessing availability issue because she is attending school. You need to provide evidence (school hours or any proof related to school)that her attending school is not a barrier working 40hrs a week.

[u/eeisner → u/red_nene10]

So proof that the program is virtual and asynchronous?

Why is the state asking for money back prior to when her school program started?

[u/red_nene10 → u/eeisner]

As I stated, it’s my guess since you didn’t really state the reason why she was denied for availability issues. All the other information you provided doesn’t explain her availability issue.

Since you reported that SPS is challenging her ineligibility, i am guessing that dhe was terminated as she was unable to work 40hrs a week rather than laid off due to lack of work.

[u/eeisner → u/red_nene10]

I gave the reason in my original post but here is the direct quote:

We must reduce or deny your unemployment benefits starting Nov 9 2025. Read the reason for our decision below. Our decision could change if that reason no longer applies to you.

We decided that:

You are not able and available to work at least 40 hours each week during the usual work times for your occupation.

We received information that you were not able or available to work. The law says you must be able and available to work to be eligible for benefits. That means you must be able and available to work on the days and hours usual for your type of work.

The laws that apply are RCW 50.20.010, RCW 50.20.130, WAC 192-140-200 and WAC 192-170-010.

Her original eligibility for unemployment came from a private school that laid her off due to lack of funding and enrollment, not SPS related.

And again: her graduate school started the 2nd week of January and the state is asking for pay back to when she started with SPS in November.

I would be ok if we can have the ruling changed to only owe back pay from mid January through March and not the extra 2ish months. Cuts the dollar amount almost in half.

[u/SoThenIThought_ → u/red_nene10]

Strongly agree

[u/SoThenIThought_]

Hi

Currently the Firm I work for has a case in Superior Court about reasonable assurance.

I will be so happy after having done this "Reasonable Assurance" for 6 years once they fix this so that we will not have the same litigious issues for this specific case type.

We can go over it more if you want or you can also set up a time with me