Gongwer News Service
Several key constitutional claims in a years-old due process lawsuit between the United Auto Workers and the Unemployment Insurance Agency were dismissed in the agency’s favor, court records show.
In an order in Kreps v. UIA (USEDM Docket No. 22-12020), U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith of the Eastern District of Michigan granted the agency and its officials summary judgment on most of the claims in question.
The lawsuit was filed in 2022 to declare the UIA’s practice of suspending benefits without pre-termination notice, and without an opportunity to be heard, as a violation of the Due Process Clause. The UIA and then-Director Julia Dale, Kimberly Berry, director of the Tax & Employment Services Division, and Teresa Burns, a division administrator, were named as defendants on the lawsuit.
In his ruling, Goldsmith said the court agreed with UIA’s motion to dismiss the due process complaints, which were based on allegations that the agency violated the UAW’s rights in the handling of traditional unemployment insurance claims and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance claims.
For the PUA claims, Goldsmith said he agreed with the defendants that the UAW and the individual plaintiffs failed to establish that the law recognizes a constitutionally protected property interest in PUA benefits. The state argued that the court should grant summary disposition as to all PUA claims. Goldsmith also agreed.
As for the traditional UI claims, Goldsmith said letters giving notice to the claimants on the steps for an appeal were sent to the plaintiffs, which provided adequate notice to be heard.
Goldsmith said he agreed that the plaintiffs were not deprived of benefits before they had notice or an opportunity to be heard.
“The plaintiffs are simply incorrect that the Agency failed to provide the UI plaintiffs with any notice or an opportunity to be heard about their claims,” he wrote. “Not only did the plaintiffs receive the notice letters, they also all undertook, to varying degrees of success, one or more steps of the protest and/or appeal processes.”
The process set forth in the letters was the one they were required to follow under state law, and the defendants said this was exactly the process they provided the plaintiffs. Goldsmith said he agreed that was the case.
Other issues in the case required more fact finding to make a substantive summary judgment ruling, Goldsmith said, and the case will continue on the basis of those claims.
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Three-County & Full Pass also available
