IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING LAWSUIT:

Hey everyone! 

The legal representation I was working with advised me and the other citizen reps who were diligently helping with the case to join forces with a group called UWU. UWU was in the process, as we were, in getting legal representation to file. Their legal team has not reached out to me directly yet. However, on our end we contacted legal representation who gave us more information regarding the lawsuit. With more specifics about the laws and process in court. But I will be honest, because this wasnt filed at the start, our chance of winning is vague. 

A fellow Arizonan who has been supporting this cause from the start, doing her research and reaching out to lawyers, she has been a vital member in supporting the lawsuit and according to a lawyer she contacted via email:

"A temporary injunction wouldn't be worth pursuing because the final payable week for the latest extension of unemployment benefits, under the American Rescue Plan, is this very week. However, I do believe we could try to obtain backpay for the lost weeks (July 10-September 3).

The Indiana temporary order hinges on its state statute, which provides that Indiana must "secure to the state of Indiana and to employers and employees in Indiana all the rights and benefits which are conferred under the provisions of . . . 42 U.S.C. 1101 through 1109 . . . and the amendments to those statutes." I.C.S 22-4-37-1.

The Maryland order is based on the same language. The Maryland judge found the workers likely to prevail based on their state statute, which provides "In the administration of this title, the [Maryland]Secretary [of Labor] shall cooperate with the United States Secretary of Labor to the fullest extent that this title allows." Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. 8-102(a)(1).

Happily, Arizona has a very similar statute. ARS 23-645 provides:

In the administration of this chapter, the department shall:

Cooperate with the United States department of labor to the fullest extent consistent with the provisions of this chapter;
Take such action as may be necessary to secure to this state and its citizens ALL ADVANTAGES AVAILABLE under the provisions of the social security act that relate to unemployment compensation, the federal unemployment tax act, the Wagner-Peyser act and the federal-state extended unemployment compensation act of 1970;
Comply with the regulations prescribed by the United States department of labor relating to the receipt or expenditure by this state of money granted under any of such acts; and
Make such reports, in such form and containing such information as the secretary of labor may from time to time require and comply with such provisions as the secretary of labor may find from time to time necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports."

Indiana and Maryland are the 2 states that filed early and won.

This language for Arizona might not "win the day" but it DOES give us a strong chance.

More important information regarding the FPUC lawsuit via email contacted legal representation:

1. Would this case have to be pursed in state or federal court? Could it be removed to federal court?
2. Would we have to comply with Arizona’s notice of claims statute, A.R.S. Sectio 12-821.01?

"We'd file in state court, and it could not be removed since we would only be bringing a claim based on the state unemployment insurance statutes.

Yes, we would have to file a notice-of-claim, because we'd be suing the governor and DES under a state statute. Unemployment ended 7/10/21, but Governor Ducey announced the "Back to Work" order on 5/10/21, so we would want to have the notice-of-claim sent in by Thursday, November 6, 2021, at the latest.

I was browsing the news for other cases like this and found that the Ohio Supreme Courr rejected the statutory arguments made in Indiana and Maryland. The Ohio court skirted the statutory requirement that the state extend all federal advantages to state citizens by arguing that the CARES Act funding was not actually part of the federal unemployment insurance that the state statutes referred to. An Indiana appeals court also recently decided the same, though the decision had no effect because the benefits had already been reinstated and were set to run out regardless. 2021 Ind. App. LEXIS 251.

The decision is obviously very political, and I'd have to bet that our Supreme Court, if given the chance, would happily follow Ohio and Indiana."

Again, this is time sensitive. And it was from the start. Many lawyers turned this case down and others who weren't experienced in class action lawsuits or needed more assistance in ensuring we have the best chance of winning needed more time to gather information. The lawyer above turned it down. As did another lawyer who said:

"Do to the makeup of our appellate courts" I will have to pass on this case.

However, let's not get discouraged. As you can see above, they are still optimistic about the possibility of winning.