Mina Shahin (1L)

Unemployment Law Project

Seattle, WA

Mina is interning at the Unemployment Law Office (ULP) this summer. ULP is a nonprofit law firm that provides free legal assistance and information to individuals who have been denied unemployment benefits or whose benefits are being challenged. She will provide direct representation for these claimants in their appeal hearings before an Administrative Law Judge. Her work includes client intake, preparing clients for their hearing, and developing a case theory for each client. She is excited about gaining real-world exposure to public interest litigation and thrilled that she is in a position where her assistance may make a critical difference for the economic security of a family.

July 30, 2011

Working for Unemployment Law Project (ULP) has provided me with more experiences than I thought possible for a summer internship following my first year of law school. I thought it would be at least a couple years before I would take on clients and argue before judges on their behalf. I have thoroughly enjoyed having experiences so early in my law school career. The experiences have also come with many lessons, most of them about how to work with clients.

My work has focused on direct client representation. Working with clients and understanding their case has been very fulfilling and challenging. One of the most challenging aspects of working with a client is learning that truth is relative. One woman I represented in a hearing came to me with a clear version of how her employment ended. Based on her side of the story, I was outraged that the Employment Security Department (ESD) had denied this woman unemployment benefits. I was certain that ESD had purposely tried to find something wrong with her case to deny her benefits. In the hearing I learned a very different story from the employer. At first I was certain that the employer's witnesses were lying and tried to grill them on cross examination. However, after the hearing ended I thought about the situation and realized that both sides could have been telling the truth. The employer believed that the employee was unhappy and voluntarily quitting; the employee felt that the employee was telling them to quit that day. I then realized that hearings with opposing stories come down to the fact that each party experienced the situation differently. Although I was there to advocate for my client, I feel that I should have given more credence to the employer's testimony. If instead of focusing on how wrong the employer was I focused on how my client's story is simply based on her reasonable belief of the situation, I would have been a less zealous yet more effective advocate.

This story also highlights the oddity of administrative hearings. Unlike a trial, where all parties know in advance who the witnesses will be and what testimony they will give, everything is a surprise in an administrative hearing. This makes administrative hearings challenging yet suitable for learning since the strict rules of a trial courtroom do not apply to these hearings. The administrative hearings are normally conducted by phone. When the judge comes on the line and asks who is there for the employer, I always hold my breath in anticipation. This past week I was able to let my breath out with a sigh of relief since the employer failed to show and my client got a default order in her favor.

With one week left in my internship I am in complete shock that the last couple months have gone by so fast. It is unfortunate that I have to leave when I feel that there is so much left to learn from working for ULP. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the lessons I have learned and feel fortunate to have been able to impact a number of individuals' lives in a positive way. I look forward to the day that I can continue this type of work as an attorney.

---

June 28, 2011

After working at Unemployment Law Project for a month I have learned two important things: unemployment law is very exclusive; and being a sympathetic listener is more important to a client than being a successful advocate.

Since the reform of the unemployment law in 2009 it has become harder for claimants to receive unemployment benefits. The more concise and inclusive the law is, the more exclusive it is to possible nuanced claims. The biggest change has been for individuals quitting their jobs. To quit ones job and still receive unemployment benefits the individual must have a good reason. Now, this is a very deceptive concept. Just about everyone who quits their job quits for what they believe is a good reason. However, unemployment law is intended to ensure that only people who were separated from their job through no fault of their own are granted benefits. And since the law has detailed a specific list of 11 situations which are the only times a person has a good reason to quit (i.e. the claimant quit through no fault of their own), anyone falling outside those specific guidelines have no chance of receiving benefits. These 11 reasons exclude the possibility that there are other reasons a person may quit through no fault of their own that are not included in the list.

Before the law changed there were times in which a good legal argument could be made why a persons' reason for quitting was through no fault of their own even though it was not one of the listed reasons in the statute. A common argument for a good reason to quit before the change in the law was for workplace harassment. It is surprising how often claimants call in with stories of harassment from their employers. Almost every situation is unique. And while some situations are more believable than others, the fact of the matter remains that these people were in an uncomfortable situation. Unfortunately for them, they are excluded from unemployment benefits because the law contains such specific criteria for a good reason to quit. It is always hard to explain to someone that although leaving a hostile work environment is a good reason to quit, the law decides that your reason was not good enough or that your harm was not great enough.

Although working within the constraints of the law can be frustrating, it has been comforting to learn that a client is most satisfied with your representation when they feel your empathy for their situation. So far I have only done two hearings and both times the client was pleased by my closing argument. They were not pleased because I made a complicated legal argument or because I spoke with particular eloquence. The clients were pleased because I was on their side. These clients are usually very intimidated when pitted against their former employer, her witnesses, and her representative. It is a relief for clients to have someone stand up for them and take their side at the end of the hearing. Therefore, I feel like my most important task at ULP is to ensure that I am always supportive of my client and that they feel that support.

I am looking forward to conducting more hearings and gaining more experience advocating for clients in their fight for unemployment benefits.