Louisiana claim deadlines for employers

Note from the rules table

⛔ READ THIS BEFORE COMPUTING ANYTHING. LOUISIANA PUBLISHES NO DAY-COUNT FOR REPLYING TO A NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED. LAC 40:IV.324 requires the employer or its agent to reply 'within the time specified in the notice', so that due date is READ OFF THE DOCUMENT and cannot be derived from this row. R.S. 23:1624.1 says the same thing for state employing authorities. THE THREE DAYS HERE IS A DIFFERENT DUTY AND A DIFFERENT CLOCK: LAC 40:IV.323.A.1 obliges the employer, whenever a worker is separated permanently or for seven or more days under conditions that may disqualify him under R.S. 23:1601, to give the worker a separation notice alleging disqualification and to send the administrator a certified copy, both 'within three days after such separation'. IT RUNS FROM THE SEPARATION, NOT FROM ANY NOTICE. `countFrom: "notice_date"` is the closest member of the CountFrom union and it is WRONG in the strict sense; there is no `separation_date`. Louisiana intake must record the separation date and the due date printed on the claim notice as two separate facts, and must not feed the notice date to the deadline engine as though it started this clock. The three days is load-bearing for money, not just for compliance: R.S. 23:1553(A)(1) makes a TIMELY separation notice one of three conditions for noncharging after a requalification.

Note from the rules table

⛔ THE LEVER IS THE DAY-ONE CHARGEABILITY DETERMINATION, NOT THE QUARTERLY STATEMENT. R.S. 23:1541.1(A) has the administrator issue a determination of chargeability to base-period employers 'upon the commencement of payment of a claim', and it becomes conclusive unless the employer appeals within thirty days after the DATE OF MAILING, hence countFrom mail_date, not statement_date. THE QUARTERLY STATEMENT IS A TRAP FOR THE SEPARATING EMPLOYER. R.S. 23:1541(A) does give thirty days from the mailing of the quarterly statement to file 'an application to review the charges', but R.S. 23:1541(B) then removes standing from any employer that was a party to the separation determination, reconsidered determination or decision, or that was issued a 23:1541.1 notice, which is exactly the customer this desk serves. R.S. 23:1541(C) leaves the statement route open only to an employer that was NOT a party and got NO chargeability determination, and even then the administrator answers it by issuing a 23:1541.1 determination. R.S. 23:1541.1(D) closes the loop: a final chargeability decision 'shall be binding upon the employer upon his receipt of the quarterly statement of benefit charges', and no employer may re-contest what it already had notice of. MISS THE THIRTY DAYS AND THE CHARGE IS FINAL, there is no late-but-worth-less path here of the kind Pennsylvania has.

Note from the rules table

Fifteen days after notification was GIVEN or was MAILED to the last known address, R.S. 23:1629(A)(1) names both, so countFrom is notice_date and the date to read is the one on the notice the employer actually received. FILING IS BY POSTMARK OR BY DELIVERY: the statute accepts an appeal 'either by mailing such appeal, as evidenced by the postmarked date, or by delivering such appeal', so a Louisiana appeal posted on day fifteen is timely. FIFTEEN DAYS RECURS TWICE MORE and neither is this window: R.S. 23:1630(A) gives fifteen days to take the referee's decision to the board of review, and R.S. 23:1626(B) gives fifteen days from the date of the determination for a party to PROTEST a nonmonetary determination into a redetermination, a cheaper first move than an appeal, and one the administrator may convert into an appeal himself if the evidence does not justify redetermining.

⛔ THREE CONDITIONS, ALL REQUIRED, AND TWO OF THEM ARE THE DESK'S OWN WORK. R.S. 23:1553(A) grants this 'when ALL of the following pertain': (1) 'The employer timely files a separation notice alleging disqualification.', the LAC 40:IV.323 three-day notice; (2) 'Either a response to a notice of claim filed or a response to a notice to base period employer is filed.', the LAC 40:IV.324 reply, due on the date printed on the notice; and (3) 'The separation of the employee from the employer is determined to be under disqualifying conditions.' A customer that separated the employee quietly and never filed the three-day notice has already lost this ground before the claim is filed, whatever the merits of the separation. automatic is not set: the two filings are exactly what makes it non-automatic.

⛔ THIS GROUND HAS TO BE ASKED FOR. LOUISIANA SAYS SO IN THE WORD THE FLAG USES. The Employer Tax Guide describes this exact case, a claimant drawing benefits who is still working for you as a base period employer on a continual part-time basis, and then says: "You must make a written request for the non-charging of benefits to this agency if you receive a Benefit Charge Statement and are charged for an individual who is still in your employ at the same number of hours and rate of pay. This provision of our law is not automated." The same guide asks "Are the credits above automatic?" of a numbered list whose Item 3 is this ground almost word for word, and answers: "Only Items 1 and 2 are automatic. Item 3 must be requested." Two bullets earlier, in the same list under the same heading, the guide uses the opposite word for the R.S. 23:1553 ground: "This non-charging is done in an automatic procedure and need not be requested unless an error has occurred." Louisiana draws the line itself, in adjacent bullets, and this ground is on the requested side of it. THE REQUEST HAS A THIRTY DAY FUSE AND IT RUNS FROM THE BENEFIT CHARGE STATEMENT. The state's Benefit Charge Protest form, revised 12/2025, carries the window on its face: "An employer may protest a benefit charge within 30 days of the mailing of the Statement of Benefit Charges." That form has no printed form number, which is why formId is null rather than a number. THE CLOCK IN windows.chargeProtest ON THIS ROW IS A DIFFERENT CLOCK. It is the R.S. 23:1541.1 chargeability determination, counted from the mailing of that determination. The guide and the protest form both point this ground at the Benefit Charge Statement instead, which is the R.S. 23:1541(A) route, and R.S. 23:1541(B) bars that route for an employer that was a party to the separation determination. Whether an employer who is still employing the claimant falls inside or outside that bar is not answered by any Louisiana document read for this row. Diary the thirty days from the Benefit Charge Statement mailing date and file. THE GROUND ITSELF IS NARROWER THAN THE ORDINARY CONTINUING PART-TIME GROUND ELSEWHERE IN THIS TABLE. Louisiana requires NO reduction in hours OR wages, so a customer that cut the hours does not reach it. The statute that creates the ground, R.S. 23:1533(A)(3), is still cited on this row in `sources`; the source on the ground itself is the guide, because the guide is what settles whether a filing is required.

R.S. 23:1635 is the pay-pending-appeal provision, so this is the ground that makes winning a Louisiana appeal actually remove the charge rather than merely stop it accruing. It attaches on the FINAL determination. The money comes back late, and the desk should track it rather than bill for chasing it. THE FLAG IS CONFIRMED BY THE STATE'S OWN GUIDE. The Employer Tax Guide's reimbursable employer FAQ lists this ground as its Item 2, benefits paid to an individual who has been disqualified by an Administrative Law Judge, Board of Review or the judicial courts, alongside Item 1, administrative error where it is finally determined that the claimant was not entitled to benefits. The guide then asks "Are the credits above automatic?" and answers: "Only Items 1 and 2 are automatic. Item 3 must be requested." This ground is on the automatic side of that answer. Item 3 in the same list is la.claimant_still_employed_no_reduction, which is why that row no longer carries the flag.

R.S. 23:1553(B)(4) recoups these amounts as a social charge spread to all employers, which is the mechanism by which the base-period employer is made whole. ⛔ THE automatic FLAG ON THIS ROW IS UNRESOLVED AND IS LEFT AS IT WAS FOUND. The automatic flag audit of 2026-09-05, recorded in research/findings/precedent.md sections 13.3 and 20.3, read both Louisiana Workforce Commission documents in full, the Employer Tax Guide and the Regulations PDF of LAC 40:IV, and neither document mentions this ground at all. R.S. 23:1602(3) is flat and unconditional and states no employer burden, which is the pattern that confirmed the flag on la.part_time_or_interim_employer, but the audit declined to extend that verdict by analogy and this row keeps its decision. Louisiana is the one state where an analogy about this flag has already proved wrong: la.claimant_still_employed_no_reduction reads the same way in the statute and the state's guide says in terms that it must be requested. Treat the flag here as unproved until a Louisiana document answers it, and do not let a desk skip a filing on the strength of it.

The terms 'part-time', 'interim', 'full-time' and 'regular' are defined by the administrator's own regulation rather than by the statute, so the ground turns on a definition that is not in the quoted text. The same paragraph carries a WARN Act carve-out: nobody receiving WARN Act payments under 29 U.S.C. 2104 is disqualified for refusing to leave other employment to return to the employer making those payments. THE automatic FLAG ON THIS ROW WAS CHECKED AND CONFIRMED. The automatic flag audit of 2026-09-05, recorded in research/findings/precedent.md sections 13.3 and 20.3, read R.S. 23:1601(1)(c) in full and found the non-charge stated flat and unconditional, with no employer application, no notice duty and no deadline anywhere in the paragraph. It is not the same ground as la.claimant_still_employed_no_reduction, which the state's own guide says must be requested.

All three conditions in R.S. 23:1601(1)(d)(i) have to hold together: spouse of an active-duty service person, an order of permanent change of station, and a resignation in order to relocate under that order. Recouped as a social charge under R.S. 23:1553(B)(5). ⛔ THE automatic FLAG ON THIS ROW IS UNRESOLVED AND IS LEFT AS IT WAS FOUND. The automatic flag audit of 2026-09-05, recorded in research/findings/precedent.md sections 13.3 and 20.3, read both Louisiana Workforce Commission documents in full and searched the extracted text for military, spouse, permanent change of station and 1601(1)(d). Neither document mentions this ground at all. The statute is flat and unconditional, which is the pattern that confirmed the flag on la.part_time_or_interim_employer, but the audit declined to extend that verdict by analogy and this row keeps its decision. Treat the flag here as unproved until a Louisiana document answers it, and do not let a desk skip a filing on the strength of it.