Question

Peter is legitimately terminated from AM, Inc. located in Illinois.  The company's reason for termination was a reduction-in-force, which resulted in the elimination of Peter's position.  He is eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.  The Department of Employment Security has notified Peter that his eligibility provides for up to twenty-six weeks of unemployment compensation benefits.

Peter had a planned four-week vacation that had been scheduled for July.  He was terminated by AM, Inc. in May, and he applied for unemployment compensation benefits shortly thereafter.  He had already purchased airline tickets, paid for hotels, and booked various non-refundable reservations for outings during the scheduled vacation.  All of the items were purchased in advance and reservations booked would result in no refunds.  Since he already saved for the planned vacation, he decided to follow through with it, even though he remained unemployed.

One of Peter's former supervisors, who remained actively employed with AM, Inc., is friends with Peter on Facebook. Peter posted, on Facebook, various photos of his activities during the four-week vacation.  In a conversation with the company's human resource manager, the supervisor commented upon Peter's vacation.  The human resource manager, in turn, contacted the Department of Employment Security objecting to Peter's eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits during that four-week period of time.

The Department of Employment Security has scheduled a hearing whether to deny Peter benefit coverage for the period in which he was on vacation.  Can AM, Inc. protest his continued eligibility benefits, even though it did not originally?  Is Peter eligible for benefits during the four-week period?  Why, why not?  Discuss fully

Answer 1

Since Peter was legally terminated ,he was as per law eligible for unemployment benefits . Now this benefit is given by law and law can't peer into someone else's personal life .

From the incident , it appears that since he posted his activities on social media , his supervisor thought otherwise and probably out of jealousy he reported this to HR manager .

AM inc. protest is invalid as it was them who terminated Peter's employment , then how can they comment upon Peter's unemployent benefits .

From the sequence of events , it appears that had Peter not posted his activities , AM inc wouldn'thave acted .

Whatever the case may be , what Peter does while being unemployed should not concern the previous company as it amounts to invasion of privacy , which is guaranteed by law .

Hence Peter is eligible for unemployment benefits and AM Inc. protest in invalid .

Note : If you liked the answer please give an Up-vote , this will be quite encouraging for me thank you !.