Cosby v. Ward
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
843 F.2d 967 (1988)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
When any long-term unemployed worker exhausted state-unemployment benefits, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) (defendant) informed the worker of the ability to apply for federal supplemental benefits. To receive federal benefits, a claimant must show that the claimant was actively conducting a job search. IDES provided the claimant a notice outlining general employment-search instructions, including a requirement to relax wage and commute-length demands. Claimants were required to submit responses to form questionnaires every two weeks, indicating the distance the claimant was willing to travel and the compensation the claimant was willing to accept. Although not explicitly stated in the notices, IDES used objective rules to determine eligibility, including denying any claim from a claimant unwilling to commute at least two hours round-trip or accept minimum wage. If IDES denied a claim, the claimant was notified to appear before an adjudicator, though the notice frequently failed to indicate the claim’s deficiencies. If the adjudicator again found the claimant ineligible, the claimant would be denied benefits for the two weeks covered by the questionnaire. Unemployed workers denied benefits (the workers) (plaintiffs) sued, arguing that IDES violated their Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights by sending inadequate notices. IDES moved for judgment on the record, which the district court granted. The workers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.