Must be responsible for compensating employees to be liable for unemployment insurance - Administrative Hearings and Appeals Legal Blogs Posted by John J. Tollefsen - Lawyers.com

Must be responsible for compensating employees to be liable for unemployment insurance

Language Connection, LLC v. Employment Sec. Dept. of State, — P.3d —-, 2009 WL 1058593 (Wash.App. Div. 1 Apr 13, 2009) (NO. 61703-6-I)

  The Language Connection (TLC) is a services referral agency for language interpreters. The Employment Security Department concluded that the interpreters were engaged in employment for TLC and the company was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The plain language of RCW 50.04.245 requires that before a services referral agency like TLC is liable, it must be responsible for compensating the workers it refers. Because TLC is not responsible for compensating the interpreters for their services, Division One reversed the Department’s decision.

View Attorney Profile

John J. Tollefsen

Licensed since 1974

Member at firm Tollefsen Law PLLC

AWARDS

AV Preeminent

RECENT POSTS

  • Fraudulent Conveyance – No Intent Required
    Posted on November 5, 2009

    Under Washington’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), chapter 19.40 RCW, creditors have a cause of action against transferees who received fraudulently conveyed property of debtors. Division III added (“read in”) the requirement that there be intent to defraud. The UFTA statute does not require intent. ... Read more

  • Negligent Misrepresentation Rescission Claim Allowed
    Posted on November 5, 2009

    Washington’s Supreme Court extended the rule to cover all cases where the harm is “more properly remediable only in contract” in Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wash.2d 674, 153 P.3d 864 (2007). The Court then put the legal world on notice that there will be certain exceptions like, maybe, professional malpractice. The reasoning is fuzzy. In ... Read more

  • Rulings apply retroactively unless the case states the application is prospective only
    Posted on August 31, 2009
    Topic: Litigation

    When the Supreme Court announces a new rule of law or a change of existing law, the issues becomes whether it is applied to cases that arose prior to the ruling. The answer is that it depends on whether the court holds that it is prospective or retroactive. In explaining its ruling the court made ... Read more

John J. Tollefsen

Licensed since 1974

Member at firm Tollefsen Law PLLC

AWARDS

AV Preeminent

RECENT POSTS

  • Fraudulent Conveyance – No Intent Required
    Posted on November 5, 2009

    Under Washington’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), chapter 19.40 RCW, creditors have a cause of action against transferees who received fraudulently conveyed property of debtors. Division III added (“read in”) the requirement that there be intent to defraud. The UFTA statute does not require intent. ... Read more

  • Negligent Misrepresentation Rescission Claim Allowed
    Posted on November 5, 2009

    Washington’s Supreme Court extended the rule to cover all cases where the harm is “more properly remediable only in contract” in Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wash.2d 674, 153 P.3d 864 (2007). The Court then put the legal world on notice that there will be certain exceptions like, maybe, professional malpractice. The reasoning is fuzzy. In ... Read more

  • Rulings apply retroactively unless the case states the application is prospective only
    Posted on August 31, 2009
    Topic: Litigation

    When the Supreme Court announces a new rule of law or a change of existing law, the issues becomes whether it is applied to cases that arose prior to the ruling. The answer is that it depends on whether the court holds that it is prospective or retroactive. In explaining its ruling the court made ... Read more