CHARLESTON – A potential class action lawsuit accuses WorkForce West Virginia of violating the state Unemployment Compensation Act for trying to collect alleged overpayments more than two years after the claims were paid.
Deborah Beheler Baldwin is the named plaintiff in the petition filed November 27 in Kanawha Circuit Court against WorkForce West Virginia and Scott A. Adkins in his capacity as acting commissioner. WorkForce West Virginia is a division of the state Department of Commerce that administers the state unemployment program.
According to the petition, Baldwin was employed at Alliance Oncology in Charleston in March 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic caused her and others to be placed on part-time employment. They were told to file claims with WorkForce for unemployment compensation. She did so on April 5, 2020.
That same month, WorkForce decided to provide certain unemployment compensation benefits to Baldwin. She says she received benefits for about three months until she regained full-time employment in June 2020.
Then, in the summer of 2023, Baldwin says she received a letter from WorkForce West Virginia containing a notice claiming additional information was required about her claim filed in 2020. Within the span of two weeks, she received three such letters. The third one said WorkForce had overpaid her $2,054. It also said Baldwin was required to repay that amount. The letter said she had eight days to appeal, so she did so.
After she received a notice of a telephonic hearing, Baldwin says she received another letter from WorkForce quoting the West Virginia Unemployment Compensation Law saying she could have the sum deducted from a future benefit or to repay the commissioner.
“Incredibly, WorkForce deliberately included only a portion … and intentionally withheld the most critical portion of this paragraph in the West Virginia Code,” the petition states. “In an effort to conceal the agency’s untimely and illegal collection activity, WorkForce intentionally omitted the portion of the paragraph establishing that the agency’s actions were illegal – as to this plaintiff and all those similarly situated.”
The omitted portion said the collection or deduction of benefits shall be barred after the expiration of two years.
“WorkForce did not allege fraud or misrepresentation,” the petition states. “It if had, WorkForce would have been required to file a lawsuit instead of utilizing its administrative adjudication process.”
Baldwin says the collection activities are prohibited by state law and have caused her tremendous stress and worry. The petition also notes the state’s Intermediate Court of Appeals has confirmed collection for benefits occurring more than two years prior to overpayment determinations are time-barred by state code.
“Yet defendant – undeterred – continues to harass plaintiff and others similarly situation by continuing to file document after document seeking collection of these claims,” the petition states.
The petition says the defendants’ conduct is harassment, oppressive and in bad faith. It also says it is resulting in refunds paid by citizens for baseless alleged debts, legal fees, deductions from subsequent claim funds, levy against citizens’ tax refunds as well as annoyance and inconvenience.
The petition accuses the defendants of time-barred collection activity and violating due process requirement of the state Constitution.
The proposed class is all claimants of unemployment benefits since January 1, 2020, whom WorkForce has sought collection of these time-barred claims regarding alleged overpayments by any means other than civil litigation. The petition says there are more than 10,000 potential class members.
The petition seeks to stay further proceedings in WorkForce’s proceedings with Baldwin, a rule in mandamus and/or prohibition for WorkForce to show cause as to way the court should not bar it from trying to collect time-barred alleged overpayments and a declaratory judgment calling the defendants’ acts in violation of Baldwin’s rights and the state Constitution.
It also seeks a declaratory judgment nullifying and voiding any obligation for repayment of such claims and an order prohibiting the defendants from seeking collection of such overpayments. It also seeks to have the defendants pay restitution for all members of the class and to have all deductions made to subsequent benefits be nullified and voided.
It also seeks to have the defendants pay damages to each class member for actual, consequential and incidental damages as well as for emotional distress, aggravation, anxiety, annoyance and inconvenience as well as attorney fees, court costs, pre- and post-judgment interests and other relief.
Baldwin is being represented by L. Dante diTrapano, David H. Carriger and D. Christopher Hedges of Calwell Luce diTrapano in Charleston, by Ben Salango of Salango Law in Charleston and by Patrick Salango of Salango Legal Firm in Charleston. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey.
Kanawha Circuit Court case number 23-P-454
