[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-304688-105":53,"doc-detail-304688-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","administrative-law-judge-decision-unemployment-insurance-appeal-22a-ui-19665-ds-t","Administrative Law Judge Decision - Unemployment Insurance Appeal 22A-UI-19665-DS-T","","Administrative Law Judge decision in an Iowa unemployment insurance appeal involving Sherman J. Bourgeois (claimant/appellant) and C and A Transportation LLC (employer). The case addresses whether claimant’s monetary determination is correct and whether transportation services provided between August 2021 and September 14, 2022 generated insured wages for benefit purposes. The decision affirms the November 16, 2022 unemployment insurance ruling pending a misclassification investigation. Misclassification is remanded to the Iowa Workforce Development Misclassification Unit for status determination and possible monetary redetermination.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/administrative-law-judge-decision-unemployment-insurance-appeal-22a-ui-19665-ds-t/304688/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/administrative-law-judge-decision-unemployment-insurance-appeal-22a-ui-19665-ds-t/304688.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Gloria","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-28","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":47},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What was the claimant appealing in this unemployment insurance case?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The claimant appealed the unemployment insurance decision dated November 16, 2022, which denied adding wages to his claim for July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What are the central issues the administrative law judge addressed?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The judge addressed whether the monetary determination is correct and whether the claimant earned insured wages for purposes of unemployment insurance benefits.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the decision resolve the dispute about employee versus independent contractor status?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The decision states the monetary record is correct unless a misclassification investigation changes the characterization. The misclassification issue is remanded to the Iowa Workforce Development Misclassification Unit for investigation and determination, which may require a monetary redetermination.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},304688,1790280733,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":47,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":47,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":139,"read_time":73},2336474459895,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000baeef7a5ed0655?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786071322749376916","IOWA DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS AND APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DIVISION, UI APPEALS BUREAU  \n\n| SHERMAN J BOURGEOIS\u003Cbr>Claimant\u003Cbr>C AND A TRANSPORTATION LLC\u003Cbr>Employer | APPEAL 22A-UI-19665-DS-T\u003Cbr>ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION\u003Cbr>OC: 10/09/22\u003Cbr>Claimant: Appellant (1R) |\n| --- | --- |\n\nIowa Code § 96.3(4)– Determination of Benefits  \nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE:  \nOn November 29 , 2022, the claimant filed an appeal from the unemployment insurance decision dated November 16 , 2022 , ( Reference 01) that denied his request to have wages added to his unemployment insurance claim for the period beginning July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022. Notice of hearing was mailed to the parties’ last known addresses of record for a telephone hearing to be held at 1:00 p. m. on January 9 , 2023. The claimant participated personally. The employer participated through Arjana Duratovic, Owner. The administrative law judge took official notice of the administrative record.  \nISSUES:  \nIs the claimant’s monetary determination correct?  \nDid claimant earn insured wages for purposes of his claim for unemployment insurance benefits?  \nFINDINGS OF FACT:  \nThe claimant performed transportation services between August 2021 and September 14, 2022. The claimant did transport trailers for C-Line LLC and was provided with a 1099-NEC tax form atthe beginning of 2022. The claimant was never provided a W-2 tax form, and the employer considered the claimant to be an independent contractor. The Department found no wages for the claimant when he filed his claim with an original effective date of October 9, 2022. The claimant believes he should have been classified as an employee, rather than an independent contractor. Whether claimant was an independent contractor or employee has not been investigated by the Iowa Workforce Development Misclassification Unit.  \nREASONING AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:  \nFor the reasons that follow, the administrative law judge concludes the monetary record is correct unless a misclassification investigation and determination reveals otherwise.  \nIowa Code § 96.3(4) provides:  \n4. Determination of benefits.  \na. With respect to benefit years beginning on or after July 1, 1983, an eligible individual's weekly benefit amount for a week of total unemployment shall be an amount equal to the following fractions of the individual's total wages in insured work paid during that quarter of the individual's base period in which such total wages were highest; the director shall determine annually a maximum weekly benefit amount equal to the following percentages, to vary with the number of dependents, of the statewide average weekly wage paid to employees in insured work which shall be effective the first day of the first full week in July:  \nIf the number of The weekly benefit Subject to the  \ndependents is: amount shall equal following Max  \nthe following fraction percentage of  \nof high quarter wages: statewide avg.  \nweekly wage:  \n0 1/23 53%  \n1 1/22 55%  \n2 1/21 57%  \n3 1/20 60%  \n4 or more 1/19 65%  \nb. The maximum weekly benefit amount, if not a multiple of one dollar shall be rounded to the lower multiple of one dollar. However, until such time as sixty-five percent of the statewide average weekly wage exceeds one hundred ninety dollars, the maximum weekly benefit amounts shall be determined using the statewide average weekly wage computed on the basis of wages reported for calendar year 1981. As used in this section \"dependent\" means dependent as defined in section 422 . 12, subsection 1, paragraph \"c\", as if the individual claimant was a taxpayer, except that an individual claimant's nonworking spouse shall be deemed to be a dependent under this section. \"Nonworking spouse\" means a spouse who does not earn more than one hundred twenty dollars in gross wages in one week.  \nThe income claimant received from C-Line LLC and C & A Transport LLC was not classified as wages and the monetary record is correct. However, since there is a d","cbCaiujOybOOSo55","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiujOybOOSo55","pdf",164588,"English","# Statement of the Case\n# Issues\n# Findings of Fact\n# Reasoning and Conclusions of Law\n# Decision and Remand\n# Appeal Rights","[{\"question\":\"What was the claimant appealing in this unemployment insurance case?\",\"answer\":\"The claimant appealed the unemployment insurance decision dated November 16, 2022, which denied adding wages to his claim for July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the central issues the administrative law judge addressed?\",\"answer\":\"The judge addressed whether the monetary determination is correct and whether the claimant earned insured wages for purposes of unemployment insurance benefits.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the decision resolve the dispute about employee versus independent contractor status?\",\"answer\":\"The decision states the monetary record is correct unless a misclassification investigation changes the characterization. The misclassification issue is remanded to the Iowa Workforce Development Misclassification Unit for investigation and determination, which may require a monetary redetermination.\"}]","Administrative Law Judge Decision - Unemployment Insurance Appeal 22A-UI-19665-DS-T | PDF",1789816188]