Idaho claim deadlines for employers

Note from the rules table

SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE THE REQUEST WENT OUT, not from any date on the notice the employer receives. Idaho Code § 72-1351B(2) defines a timely response as one 'received by the department within seven (7) days from the date the request is mailed or sent electronically', so the clock is the department's send date and the deadline is a RECEIPT deadline at the department's end. That is two squeezes in one sentence: postal transit eats the window from the front and the back. The department may extend the limit at its discretion on the employer's WRITTEN request, which is a lever worth using the moment a request lands late. The section this number lives in is the federal-conformity provision, so the consequence of lateness is not a forfeited protest: under § 72-1351B(1) an experience-rated employer's account may not be relieved of charges, and a reimbursing employer may not be relieved of liability, for overpaid benefits where the employer was at fault for a late or inadequate response AND has a pattern of it, a pattern being 'at least two (2) or more instances', measured against a third-party agent's own record where an agent responds. Idaho Administrative Code IDAPA 09.01.30 requires an employer 'when contacted by a Department representative for a response' to give the reasons for the separation, but states no number of days; § 72-1351B(2) is the number.

Note from the rules table

THE CHARGEABILITY DETERMINATION IS ITS OWN FILING ON ITS OWN CLOCK, it is not the benefit appeal, even though both are fourteen days. When a claim is filed, Idaho identifies the major base employer (the experience-rated employer that paid the claimant the most wages in four of the last five completed calendar quarters) and mails IT a chargeability notice; § 72-1351(3) makes that determination final unless an interested party appeals within fourteen days after notice. Notice is governed by § 72-1368(5), under which service by mail is complete ON THE DATE OF MAILING and service by electronic transmission on the date it was transmitted, hence `mail_date` rather than a date printed on the notice. The department's own handbook says the period 'is also shown on the notice', so read it off the document and take the earlier of printed and computed per PRD §6.2. There is NO FORM: the handbook tells the employer to write to the Idaho Department of Labor with a complete explanation of the circumstances of the termination. COST-REIMBURSEMENT EMPLOYERS ARE OUTSIDE ALL OF THIS, § 72-1351(2) excepts them, and the handbook is blunt that a cost-reimbursement employer is billed its proportionate share 'regardless of the reason for the claimant's separation from the job.' Check the financing method before promising a protest.

Note from the rules table

Fourteen days after notice under § 72-1368(3)(c), with notice complete on the date of mailing or electronic transmission under § 72-1368(5), so the clock starts when the department SENDS, not when the employer opens the envelope. Filing dates are generous about method and strict about time: personal delivery is dated on delivery, a fax or electronic appeal on the date received in mountain time (or the next business day if that falls on a weekend or holiday), and a mailed appeal on the POSTMARK. § 72-1368(3)(d) reopens the window to fourteen days from actual notice where a party proves by a preponderance that postal or departmental error meant the determination was not delivered within fourteen days of the date of mailing shown on it. The same fourteen days runs again from a redetermination (§ 72-1368(4)(a)), from an appeals examiner's decision to the Industrial Commission (§ 72-1368(6)), and from a chargeability determination (§ 72-1351(3)); an application for rehearing before the appeals examiner is ten days instead.

THE BROADEST QUIT GROUND ON THIS TABLE. Idaho relieves the charge not only where the quit had no good cause at all but also where it had good cause 'for reasons not attributable to such covered employer', a worker who leaves for a spouse's relocation or a health reason unconnected to the job is still a non-charge. Plead the second limb in the alternative wherever the first is a stretch. 'Workplace misconduct' is defined at Idaho Code § 72-1330B and the department's appeals page states the standard the hearing officer applies: a willful disregard of the employer's interests, a deliberate violation of its rules, or a failure to meet its reasonable expectations, and 'the employer is required to prove misconduct.' There is no form; the protest is a letter giving a complete explanation of the circumstances of the termination.

Idaho pays promptly on any decision allowing benefits regardless of a pending appeal, § 72-1368(10)(a), and this ground is the counterweight: win the appeal and the charge comes off. It is automatic in substance but it is not marked `automatic` here, because nothing sourced this session says the department removes the charge without being asked. Watch the chargeability statement after a reversal and protest if the charge is still on it. The quote is a clause rather than a whole paragraph: the full text is 'If paid in accordance with the provisions of section 72-1368 (10), Idaho Code, and the decision to pay benefits is subsequently reversed', and the cross-reference is rendered with the section number as a link, so only the tail is quoted as a literal contiguous run.

A ledger ground, not a separation ground, and the one most likely to be sitting unclaimed on a statement nobody re-read. It needs the combined-wage claim's wage detail, which state's wages went in and in what proportion, not a personnel file. The quote is the operative tail of the paragraph; the head reads 'For that portion of benefits paid to multistate claimants pursuant to section 72-1344, Idaho Code,' and carries a linked cross-reference, so only the contiguous tail is quoted.

Applies by the nature of the payment rather than by anything the employer did, so it is a statement-audit finding rather than a case to plead. It should already be off the account; the value here is knowing to look for it when extended benefits have been triggered.

Note both halves. Idaho requires no reduction in the CUSTOMARY schedule with this employer AND that the eligibility arises from a different employer's layoff or earnings cut. The evidence is a schedule comparison across the base period plus the claim's own base-period wage detail showing the other employer, a current timesheet alone does not make the ground.

Rare, and it depends on the training programme satisfying § 72-1366(8) rather than on the employer's own view of the refusal. Confirm the programme's approval status before pleading it.