former employer gave 2 different termination dates. It was a no fault termination due to disability

[Johninmissouri]

Jurisdiction

Missouri

I was off work for a disability and receiving LTD benefits. My former employer submitted a layoff form in january to DOL in my name with no return to work. I was not told because I was on a medical leave.
I got a letter in march from insurance carrier that I could be let go at any time for being on LTD for 19 months. I then get a letter april 27th from Fidelity investments stating my former employer notified me prior about being let go and my former employer rolled my 401K into an IRA and I needed to create an account to access those funds.
My physician had already released me to return to work but put restrictions on me that my employer did not like so I was placed on LTD. I filed for UE benefits and started getting benefits but my former employer protested my benefits saying I was not let go until july 4th. what grounds do I stand on please help

 

[cbg]

Unless you have a binding contract or CBA that expressly says otherwise, the longest your employer is required to hold your job is 12 weeks. After that, if you are not able to return to work, the employer is legally allowed to let you go. He is not obligated to allow you to return with restrictions.

It is the employer's right under the law to contest UI benefits. Just because he contests does not mean he will prevail.

You should have paperwork from Fidelity showing when your account was rolled over. Since IRS regulations do not allow a 401(k) to be removed from the sponsoring employer's plans while you are still employed, that should be sufficient proof that you were let go as far back as April.

 

[flyingron]

There's a lot of weird stuff going on here. The employer/Fidelity should not roll 401(k) funds into anything without the request of the employee. By default, it stays invested in the original plan.

 

[Redemptionman]

There's a lot of weird stuff going on here. The employer/Fidelity should not roll 401(k) funds into anything without the request of the employee. By default, it stays invested in the original plan.

This is not necessarily true, if it is at an amount which would be in the plan documents then it can stay vested with the current company if it is not over this predetermined amount it will automatically be rolled over to another financial product.

 

[cbg]

Regardless of whether the employer was right or wrong, the poster's issue is how to prove he was entitled to unemployment prior to July 4. Unless the poster is over the age of 59 1/2, in which case Ron is unquestionably correct (I'm not saying otherwise in any case; there's definitely more here than meets the eye) the rollover will provide proof that the poster was no longer employed as of the date of the rollover. If he is over 59 1/2, I'd want to see the plan document before making any guarantees.