Board of Review Decision 352-MTPT-3858

The claimant was eligible for partial unemployment benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, §§ 29(b) and 1(r)(1), in the week that she earned less than her weekly benefit rate plus earnings disregard.

Board of Review
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Issue ID: 352-MTPT-3858

Board of Review Decision

Introduction and Procedural History of this Appeal 

The claimant appeals a decision by a review examiner of the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) to deny unemployment benefits for the week ending August 16, 2025. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and reverse. 

The claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the DUA, effective July 20, 2025, which was initially approved. However, the DUA denied the claimant benefits for the week ending August 16, 2025, in a determination issued on August 25, 2025. The claimant appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits attended by the claimant, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s initial determination and denied benefits in a decision rendered on December 24, 2025. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

Benefits were denied after the review examiner determined that the claimant was not in unemployment during the week ending August 16, 2025, and, thus, was disqualified under G.L. c. 151A, §§ 29 and 1(r) for that week. After considering the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal, we remanded the case to the review examiner to obtain additional evidence about the claimant’s earnings during that week. The claimant attended the remand hearing. Thereafter, the review examiner issued her consolidated findings of fact. Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record.

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant was not in unemployment and therefore not entitled to benefits for the week ending August 16, 2025, because her earnings from her part-time work exceeded her weekly benefit amount plus earnings disregard, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law.

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact are set forth below in their entirety:

1. The claimant filed her 1st claim for unemployment insurance benefits on 7/25/25. The claimant worked for two part-time employers during her base period which ran from 7/1/24 through 6/30/25. 
2. The claimant was determined to be monetarily eligible for unemployment benefits at the rate of $1,051.00 per week. The claimant’s earnings exclusion was established at $350 per week. 
3. The claimant’s employment with one of her part-time employers ended on or about 6/6/25. The claimant continued to work with the instant employer part-time, earning an annual salary of approximately $51,000. 
4. The claimant works 25 hours a week with the instant employer. The claimant accepts all work offered to her by the employer. 
5. The employer pays the claimant on a bi-weekly basis. During the pay period of 8/9/25 to 8/22/25 the claimant received gross wages in the amount of $2,237.90 for 50 hours of work. 
6. The claimant did not understand that she was required to report her exact gross earnings from any employment to the department when she declared unemployment insurance benefits each week. The claimant mistakenly thought she was only required to report any earnings from the employer she separated from. 
7. The claimant incorrectly reported her wages to the department for the week ending 8/16/25. 
8. On 8/25/25, the Department issued the claimant a Notice of disqualification under Sections 29(a) & (b) & 1(r) of the Law for the week ending 8/16/25 due to earning over her benefit rate plus her earnings disregard. 
9. The claimant appealed the 8/25/25 disqualification.

Ruling of the Board

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we review the record and the decision made by the review examiner to determine: (1) whether the consolidated findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence; and (2) whether the review examiner’s conclusion is free from error of law. Upon such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and deems them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. However, as discussed more fully below, we reject the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during the week ending August 16, 2025. 

G.L. c. 151A, § 29, authorizes benefits be paid only to those in “total unemployment” or “partial unemployment.”  These terms are in turn defined by G.L. c. 151A, § 1(r), which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(1) “Partial unemployment”, an individual shall be deemed to be in partial unemployment if in any week of less than full-time weekly schedule of work he has earned or has received aggregate remuneration in an amount which is less than the weekly benefit rate to which he would be entitled if totally unemployed during said week; provided, however, that certain earnings as specified in paragraph (b) of section twenty-nine shall be disregarded. . . .  

(2) “Total unemployment”, an individual shall be deemed to be in total unemployment in any week in which he performs no wage-earning services whatever, and for which he receives no remuneration, and in which, though capable and available for work, he is unable to obtain any suitable work.  

An analysis of a claimant’s unemployment status under G.L. c. 151A, §§ 29 and 1(r), is not employer specific. In other words, when a claimant works for multiple employers during her benefit year, her unemployment status in any given week is based on an assessment of her work and earnings from all of her employers during that week. 

The consolidated findings show that the claimant was working during the week ending August 16, 2025. See Consolidated Findings 4 and 5. Since she did perform wage-earning services for an employer during that week, she was not in “total unemployment” within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 1(r)(2).  

Next, we consider whether she was in partial unemployment and eligible for partial benefits pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, §§ 29(b) and 1(r)(1). To meet the definition of “partial unemployment” above, a claimant must show she worked less than a full-time weekly schedule, was capable and available for work, and earned an amount less than the sum of her weekly benefit rate plus the amount of earnings which are disregarded.

Using the claimant’s base period wages, the DUA calculated her weekly benefit rate to be $1,051 per week. Pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 29(b), earnings up to one-third of the claimant’s weekly benefit rate are disregarded. In this case, $350 in earnings are disregarded in each week. This means that the claimant will be deemed to be in partial unemployment in any week in which she earns gross wages less than $1,401 ($1,051 + $350). 

The claimant is paid bi-weekly for her work with the instant employer. During the two-week pay period between August 9, 2025, and August 22, 2025, the claimant earned gross wages of $2,237.90. Consolidated Finding 5. As she works a regular schedule for the employer each week, we can determine that her gross earnings for the 25 hours she worked during the week ending August 16, 2025, were $1,118.95 ($2,237.90 ÷ 2). Since this is less than $1,401.00, the claimant is eligible for partial unemployment benefits during this week. 

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that the claimant was in partial unemployment within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, §§ 29 and 1(r), during the week ending August 16, 2025. 

The review examiner’s decision is reversed. The claimant is entitled to receive partial benefits for the week ending August 16, 2025, if otherwise eligible.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – April 15, 2026

Charlene A Stawicki, Esquire
Member

Michael J. Albano
Member

Any further appeal would further appeal further appeal would be to a Massachusetts State District Court.
(See Section 42, Chapter 151A, General Laws, Enclosed)

The last day to appeal this decision to a Massachusetts District Court is thirty days from the mail date on the first page of this decision. If that thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the last day to appeal this decision is the business day next following the thirtieth day.

Visit this page to locate the nearest Massachusetts District Court.

Please be advised that fees for services rendered by an attorney or agent to a claimant in connection with an appeal to the Board of Review are not payable unless submitted to the Board of Review for approval, under G.L. c. 151A, § 37.

LSW/rh