Back to Federal guidance
Waivers of CARES Act unemployment overpayment recovery
Summary ETA told states how to evaluate requests to waive recovery of overpaid CARES Act unemployment benefits, including seven limited situations where a blanket waiver may be used. States must first establish an overpayment, then assess whether the person was without fault and repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. Fraudulent overpayments cannot be waived under this guidance, and the letter also explains collection duties when no waiver applies.
Document
Federal guidance
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Document number
UIPL No. 20-21, Change 1
Date issued
February 7, 2022
Status
Active
ETA’s official listing marks this letter Active, and the PDF prints “Rescissions: None” and “Expiration Date: Continuing.” It changes parts of UIPL No. 20-21 concerning waiver processing.
Status last verified October 24, 2026
Apply this to your situation
This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
RESCISSIONS: None
EXPIRATION DATE: Continuing
CLASSIFICATION
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION Unemployment Insurance
ADVISORY SYSTEM CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OUI/DPM
DATE
Washington, D.C. 20210
February 7, 2022
ADVISORY: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 20-21,
Change 1
TO: STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
FROM: ANGELA HANKS
Acting Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Additional State Instructions for Processing Waivers of Recovery of
Overpayments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act, as Amended
1. Purpose. To provide additional instructions for circumstances under which a state may
waive recovery of overpayments under the CARES Act Unemployment Compensation (UC)
programs, including elaborating on the criteria for waiving recovery of overpayments where
an individual is without fault on an individual, case-by-case basis and expanding the existing
limited scenarios for permissible use of “blanket waivers,” and to remind states that recovery
activities for fraudulent overpayments may never be waived. This Unemployment Insurance
Program Letter (UIPL) also describes the required collection activities for overpayments
under the CARES Act UC programs which are not eligible for a waiver of recovery.
2. Action Requested. The Department of Labor’s (Department) Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) requests State Workforce Administrators provide the information
contained in this UIPL to appropriate program and other staff in state workforce systems as
they implement the unemployment insurance (UI)-related provisions that respond to the
economic effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
3. Summary and Background.
a. Summary – An overpayment occurs and must be established when a state determines that
the individual received a payment, or a portion of a payment, to which they were not
entitled. To consider a waiver of the recovery of an overpayment, states must first
establish an overpayment. Once the overpayment is established, the state must then
evaluate the overpayment against the criteria described in Section 4.c.i. of this UIPL,
specifically to determine if the individual was without fault and if recovery would be
contrary to equity and good conscience. Section 4.a. of this UIPL clarifies the applicable
UC programs covered under the waiver provisions of the CARES Act, as amended, and
explains that states may choose the CARES Act UC programs to which they will apply
the waiver provisions. This supersedes guidance under Section 4.d.iv.A. of UIPL No. 20-
21 providing that if a state exercises the waiver authority for one CARES Act UC
program, it must do so for all CARES Act UC programs.
Section 4.b. of this UIPL refines prior definitions for eligibility fraud and identity (ID)
fraud, reiterates that recovery activities for fraudulent overpayments may never be
waived, and provides strategies states can use to mitigate negative consequences for
victims of ID fraud.
Section 4.c. of this UIPL builds on Section 4.d. of UIPL No. 20-21 to provide examples
of applying the waiver of recovery provisions contained within the CARES Act, as
amended. When a waiver of recovery of an overpayment is granted, the overpayment is
excluded from any required collection activities. Attachment III to this UIPL provides
sample language for states to use when communicating the approval of waiving recovery
of overpayments to individuals.
Under Section 4.c.ii. of this UIPL, the Department approves five additional scenarios (for
a total of seven scenarios) for which states may process blanket waivers only within the
context of CARES Act UC programs. These approved blanket waiver scenarios allow
the state limited circumstances by which to process the waiver of recovery for individual
overpayments when there is no need for additional fact-finding or submission of
individual requests. This allows states to process the waiver of recovery for multiple
overpayments simultaneously based on a single set of facts. Attachment I to this UIPL
describes how each of these approved scenarios satisfies the requirement that the
individual is without fault in the creation of the overpayment and that recovery would be
contrary to equity and good conscience. The Department provides a process by which
states may request approval of additional blanket waiver scenarios using the form
provided in Attachment II to this UIPL. Further, states may use automated data
processing when issuing blanket waivers of overpayments only under the CARES Act
UC programs and only for the limited scenarios described.
Section 4.d. of this UIPL describes the required collection activities for overpayments
under the CARES Act UC programs that are not eligible for a waiver of recovery. States
are reminded, as previously described in Attachment I to UIPL No. 20-21, that they may
only recover certain CARES Act overpayments with the use of benefit offsets for up to
three years after the date the individual received the overpaid amount. This three-year
limitation on benefit offsets applies to the Federal Pandemic Unemployment
Compensation (FPUC), Mixed Earners Unemployment Compensation (MEUC),
Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), and the first week of
regular UC that is reimbursed in accordance with Section 2105 of the CARES Act, as
amended; this same limitation does not apply to the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
(PUA) program. States are permitted to move weeks of unemployment between
programs and may offset at 100 percent when doing so, resulting in a remaining
overpayment balance equal to the difference in weekly benefit amount (WBA) for each
applicable week. Additionally, states must use the Treasury Offset Program (TOP) for
collecting specific types of overpayments. This UIPL also clarifies that the prohibition of
applying “other collection costs” as described in Section 4.c. of UIPL No. 20-21 does not
apply to TOP administrative fees.
b. Background – On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted (Public Law (Pub. L.)
116-136). Among other provisions, the CARES Act provided for the creation of three
new temporary UC programs: PUA, FPUC, and PEUC. Section 2105 of the CARES
Act, as amended, also provided full federal funding for the first week of regular UC for
states with no waiting week. The Department issued UIPL No. 14-20 on April 2, 2020,
to provide a summary of the key UI provisions in the CARES Act.
On December 27, 2020, the Continued Assistance for Unemployed Workers Act of 2020
(Continued Assistance Act) was enacted under Division N, Title II, Subtitle A of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260). This Act, among other things,
extended to March 14, 2021, the PUA and PEUC programs, as well as federal funding for
the first week of regular UC at a reduced amount of 50 percent, beyond their original
expiration date of December 31, 2020. The FPUC program, which expired July 31, 2020,
was reauthorized to resume at $300 for weeks of unemployment beginning after
December 26, 2020. The Continued Assistance Act also permitted a state to waive
repayment of a PUA overpayment under certain circumstances and provided for the
creation of a new temporary UC program, MEUC. The Department issued UIPL No. 09-
21 on December 30, 2020, to provide a summary of the key UI provisions in the
Continued Assistance Act.
On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was enacted (Pub. L. 117-2).
Among other things, this Act extended the PUA, PEUC, FPUC, and MEUC programs to
weeks of unemployment ending on or before September 6, 2021, and restored full federal
funding for the first week of regular UC. The Department issued UIPL No. 14-21 on
March 15, 2021, to provide guidance to states regarding the UI provisions in ARPA.
In March 2020, each state signed the “Agreement Implementing the Relief for Workers
Affected by Coronavirus Act” (Agreement) with the Department to administer PUA,
PEUC, and FPUC, as well as to receive reimbursement for the first week of regular UC
for states with no waiting week. The Agreement incorporated amendments to the
CARES Act made by the Continued Assistance Act and ARPA. Most states also signed
an addendum to administer the MEUC program in January 2021. Under these
agreements, each state is required to operate the programs as required under the CARES
Act and by any statutory amendments and the Department’s guidance.
Importance of Equity and Program Integrity. At the most fundamental level, equity
within the UI program means that states are paying UC to eligible workers, regardless of
background, in a timely and fair manner, with an application and certification process
that is readily accessible to all workers. Equity and program integrity are interdependent
concepts within the UI program, as states also play a fundamental role in ensuring the
integrity of the UI program. Program integrity involves both ensuring that entitled
workers are not underpaid nor overpaid, and preventing payments to those who are not
entitled to benefits. During implementation and administration of the CARES Act UC
programs, states were instructed to maintain a steadfast focus on UI functions and
activities that ensure program integrity and the prevention and detection of improper
payments and fraud across all programs operated within the UI system, while ensuring
that legitimate claimants are able to swiftly access benefits during a critical time (see
UIPL No. 23-20, issued May 11, 2020).
Ensuring access to UC is a longstanding priority of the Department. UIPL No. 02-16,
issued on October 1, 2015, articulates the applicable requirements under federal law and
provides guidance to states to assist in complying with these requirements. UIPL No. 02-
16, Change 1, issued on May 11, 2020, highlighted state responsibilities specifically
regarding access to UC for individuals with disabilities and individuals with limited
English proficiency. Information and claims-filing systems that have the effect of
limiting access for individuals with disabilities, persons with limited English proficiency,
individuals who are older and/or members of other protected groups may violate Federal
nondiscrimination laws. State UI agencies must take reasonable steps to ensure that, if
technology or other issues interfere with claimants’ access, they have established
effective, alternative methods of access, such as telephonic and/or in-person options.
On January 20, 2021, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13985 on advancing
racial equity and support for underserved communities. This EO articulates the
importance of advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have
been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty
and inequality. This includes addressing disparities in accessing government programs
facing individuals and communities including, but not limited to, workers who are low
paid, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indians, Alaska Native, Asian Americans, Native
Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Indigenous persons, other persons of color, individuals with
disabilities, members of religious minorities, LGBTQI+ persons, individuals with limited
English proficiency, women, formerly incarcerated workers, and individuals living in
rural areas. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) shared preliminary
information on June 17, 2021, suggesting potential racial and ethnic disparities in the
receipt of UI benefits in some states during the COVID-19 pandemic.1 Although this
report did not determine causality, it provided context for the need to take action in
evaluating and ensuring equitable access to the UI system.
Impact of CARES Act UC Programs on the Economic Effects of the COVID-19
Pandemic. Congress created the CARES Act UC programs specifically to provide
additional benefits for workers beyond the regular UC eligibility requirements, providing
benefits to a group which generally includes many who have been historically
underserved. By focusing on workers affected by the pandemic, the CARES Act greatly
increased recipiency of UC beyond what state systems offered. States implemented these
federal CARES Act UC programs quickly in order to best serve the country’s workers
and accomplish the purpose of the CARES Act.2 Recognizing the enormous challenges
of implementing new federal programs while also handling a volume of unprecedented
claims filed by the millions of workers affected by the pandemic, states generally paid
out claims to the best of their ability. There was a significant number of state errors and
inaccuracies due to these fast-changing circumstances. A recent report from the U.S.
Census Bureau estimates that these expanded unemployment benefits kept 4.7 million
people from being in poverty during 2020, decreasing poverty across all racial groups and
all age groups.3
Workers who received UC under these temporary benefit programs and were later found
ineligible, resulting in the establishment of non-fraud overpayments through no fault of
their own, generally believed that they were entitled to the benefits and spent the money
to support themselves, their families, and the economy. Seeking recovery of these
CARES Act overpayments from individuals who did not commit fraud, especially in light
of the economic effects of the pandemic, creates an extraordinary hardship on working
families, including those who have historically been underserved.
ETA issued UIPL No. 20-21 on May 5, 2021, which described the requirements for
establishing benefit overpayments for programs authorized by the CARES Act, as
amended. The UIPL provided guidance to states regarding the assessment of fraud
monetary penalties, interest, and other collection costs and described the eligibility
criteria for waiving recovery of an overpayment. The UIPL also provided two limited
scenarios when a state may process “blanket waivers” for recovery of overpayments
under the CARES Act UC programs. Additionally, states were instructed that after they
determine that recovery of an overpayment may be waived, they must refund any
amounts that were collected towards the applicable overpayment prior to the
determination of waiver eligibility. ETA estimated that it may take states up to a year to
process such refunds and encouraged states to process refunds expeditiously. Attachment
I to UIPL No. 20-21 provided a quick reference to summarize the guidelines regarding
the establishment and recovery of overpayments across UC programs.
4. Guidance.
a. Clarification of Terms. UIPL No. 20-21 described the requirements for establishing
benefit overpayments and waiving recovery of overpayments for programs authorized by
the CARES Act, as amended. This section clarifies some key terms in response to
questions the Department has received from states.
i. Applicable CARES Act UC programs. As described in Section 4 of UIPL No. 20-21,
the CARES Act UC programs include: PUA, FPUC, MEUC, PEUC, and the first
week of regular UC that is reimbursed in accordance with Section 2105 of the
CARES Act, as amended. States are strongly encouraged to waive recovery of
overpayments under the CARES Act programs, within the conditions described in
Section 4.c. of this UIPL, to the fullest extent possible and including the use of
approved blanket waivers.
States may choose whether to apply a waiver of recovery to some or all of the
CARES Act UC programs. This supersedes the guidance provided under Section
4.d.iv.A. of UIPL No. 20-21 that required states which choose to exercise waiver
authority for one program to do so for all CARES Act UC programs. The language
authorizing states to waive recovery under certain circumstances is nearly identical
across the PUA, FPUC, MEUC, and PEUC statutes. Further, the provision
authorizing waiver of recoveries for overpayments on the first week of regular UC
that is reimbursed in accordance with Section 2105 of the CARES Act, as amended,
cross-references the PEUC statute.4 Because each of the sections independently
contains the provision providing states flexibility to waive recoveries, the Department
will interpret the provisions to permit states to choose to apply the waiver authority
for some or all of the programs.
States are reminded that the authority to waive recovery of overpayments for the first
week of regular UC that is reimbursed in accordance with Section 2105 of the
CARES Act, as amended, is subject to the parameters described in Section 4.c.i. of
this UIPL. These criteria may be different than the criteria the state considers for
waiving recovery of overpayments for other weeks of regular UC under state law.
If a state chooses to exercise its authority to waive the recovery of overpayments for a
specific CARES Act UC program, it must apply such waiver consideration under the
criteria described in Section 4.c.i. of this UIPL to all overpayments under that specific
CARES Act UC program going back to the beginning of the CARES Act UC
program.
ii. Improper payment and overpayment. The term “improper payment” refers to both
an overpayment and an underpayment of UC. An overpayment occurs, and must be
established, when a state determines that the individual received a payment, or a
portion of a payment, to which they were not entitled. States must include appeal
rights as part of the determination establishing an overpayment. Further, to consider
a waiver of the recovery of an overpayment, states must first establish an
overpayment.
b. Fraudulent Overpayments. When establishing an overpayment, the state must
determine who is at fault for the overpayment (i.e., individual, employer, state, or a
combination thereof) and whether the overpayment is the result of claimant fraud; not all
overpayments are fraudulent. If an overpayment is the result of claimant fraud, states
may not waive recovery activities for the overpayment. Additionally, as discussed in
Section 4.b. of UIPL No. 20-21, the state must apply a minimum 15 percent monetary
penalty to an overpayment when the state determines, in accordance with their state UC
law, that such a payment was made due to fraud. States must apply the same monetary
penalty to CARES Act UC programs as it does to the regular UC program. See Section
251(a) of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA) (Pub. L.
112-40), which created Section 303(a)(11) of the Social Security Act (SSA) (42 U.S.C. §
503(a)(11)).5
i. Types of fraud. The Department recognizes the need to standardize nomenclature of
the different types of fraud occurring within the UC programs. ETA provided a
definition of eligibility and ID fraud as part of the grant opportunities provided for
under UIPL Nos. 28-20, Change 2, and 22-21. These definitions are further refined
below.
A. Eligibility fraud occurs when benefits or services are acquired as a result of false
information being provided with the intent to receive benefits for which an
individual would not otherwise be eligible. State law determines the criteria for
establishing a fraud determination within the UC programs.
B. ID fraud occurs when one person or group of persons use(s) the identifying
information of another person to illegally receive benefits. ID fraud also occurs
when an individual’s UI account is hacked or taken over by a person or group and
the benefit payments are re-directed to another account by changing key user data
after the claim has been established (e.g., banking information). In addition to
using stolen identities or misusing an individual’s identity, synthetic ID fraud
occurs when real and/or fake information is combined to create false identities, as
discussed in UIPL No. 16-21.
ii. Recovery of fraudulent overpayments. Under no circumstances may a state waive
recovery activities for a fraudulent overpayment. States must make every possible
effort to recover fraudulent overpayments using available resources. States must
cooperate with the Department’s Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG) on fraud
investigations (see UIPL No. 04-17, Change 1) and with the Department of Justice on
forfeiture actions taken regarding the recovery of fraudulently-overpaid benefits.
Refer to Section 4.d. of this UIPL for additional instructions on collections activity.
iii. Addressing fraudulent overpayments resulting from ID fraud to protect the rights
of victims. As described in Section 5 of UIPL No. 16-21, states must provide
individuals who suspect that their identity has been stolen with easily accessible
options to report such theft or fraudulent activity. This may include dedicated phone
options, email addresses, or an online portal by which individuals can notify the state
agency. States may also provide links to other agencies that specialize in protecting
consumers and their personal identifiable information, such as the Federal Trade
Commission’s Consumer website at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/topics/identity-
theft. ETA strongly encourages states to align their website content and
communications for victims of ID fraud with the content, resources, and reporting
requirements outlined at https://www.dol.gov/fraud.
When a state determines that ID fraud has occurred, that is, the person filing the claim
is not the actual owner of the name and/or SSN under which the claim was filed (i.e.,
an imposter), as stated earlier, the state may not waive recovery of the overpayment.
Documentation of claims activity related to the ID fraud must be preserved for future
prosecution, recovery efforts, reporting purposes, and data analytics to strengthen
fraud control efforts. Additionally, the state must take actions to protect the rights of
the ID fraud victim.
Once the state issues a fraud determination, one option states can use to mitigate
negative impacts on ID fraud victims is to establish a pseudo claim record and
transfer all claim information regarding the imposter’s activity to the pseudo claim.
This removes the fraudulent activity from the victim's SSN and/or UI account, should
the victim need to file for unemployment benefits in the future. States that may not
have the current administrative capability to move such activity to a pseudo claim
may choose to temporarily mark the overpayment as “uncollectible.” This ensures
that victims are not negatively impacted while the state develops a process to
disassociate the fraudulent activity from the victim’s SSN. However, this temporary
classification of “uncollectible” does not equate to waiving recovery of the
overpayment.
States must refer allegations that are reasonably believed to constitute UC fraud,
waste, abuse, mismanagement, or misconduct to DOL-OIG (see UIPL No. 04-17,
Change 1). Below are other actions the state may take to mitigate the negative
consequences for an ID fraud victim. Refer to UIPL No. 16-21 for additional
information.
• Ensure that if a future claim is filed under the victim’s SSN, the claimant
undergoes a secondary ID verification process (e.g., include an in-person
reporting requirement or other expanded ID verification alternatives). However,
states should try to minimize the burden on the victim as much as possible when
verifying identity.
• Ensure that the owner of the SSN is not held responsible for any overpayment
and, whenever possible, is not issued a Form 1099G at the end of the year.
• Exclude the overpayment from TOP and suspend any Benefit Payment Control
collection activity for the actual owner of the SSN.
• Not initiate any legal actions against the actual owner of the SSN.
c. Waiving Recovery of Overpayments for CARES Act UC Programs. Under the
CARES Act, as amended, states must require an individual to repay the amount to which
they were not entitled (i.e., overpayment amount) except that the state may waive
recovery under specific conditions. The state must still establish the overpayment by
investigating each individual case and providing a written determination with appeal
rights, and then make a determination to waive recovery of the established overpayment.
This section of the UIPL reiterates the eligibility criteria for waiving recovery of an
overpayment within the context of the CARES Act UC programs, describes states’
options to exercise the authority to waive recovery of such overpayments, and provides
circumstances where the Department has approved the use of blanket waivers.
States may continue to consider waiving recovery of an overpayment when it does not
fall within the approved scenarios for a blanket waiver or when the state is unable to
identify if the overpayment falls within the parameters of an approved scenario by
evaluating the overpayment on an individual, case-by-case basis as described in Section 5
of UIPL No. 23-80 and in accordance with the criteria described in Section 4.c.i. of this
UIPL.
i. Eligibility criteria for waiving recovery of an overpayment under the CARES Act
UC programs. As described in Section 4.d.i. of UIPL No. 20-21, a state may only
waive recovery of an overpayment under the CARES Act UC programs if the state
determines that both of the following conditions are satisfied. With regards to the
approved blanket waiver scenarios described in Section 4.c.ii. of this UIPL, the
Department has already found that overpayments occurring within these scenarios
meet the two conditions described below (see Section 4.c.ii. of this UIPL and
Attachment I for additional details). Under no circumstances may a state waive
recovery activities for a fraudulent overpayment.
A. Payment of such compensation was without fault on the part of any such
individual. As noted earlier, when establishing an overpayment, the state must
determine who is at fault for the overpayment (i.e., individual, employer, state, or
a combination thereof) and whether the overpayment is the result of claimant
fraud. To waive recovery of the resulting overpayment, in addition to repayment
being contrary to equity and good conscience, the payment must have been made
without fault of the individual.
Without fault means the state has determined the individual had no fault with
respect to a given week of unemployment which is determined to be overpaid.
Generally, an individual is considered to be without fault when the individual
provided all information correctly as requested by the state, but the state failed to
take appropriate action with that information or took delayed action when
determining eligibility.
When looking at eligibility to waive recovery on an individual, case-by-case
basis, the state may also find that an individual is without fault if the individual
provided incorrect information due to conflicting, changing, or confusing
information or instructions from the state; the individual was unable to reach the
state despite their best efforts to inquire or clarify what information the individual
needed to provide; or other similar difficulties (e.g., education, literacy, and/or
language barriers) in understanding what information the state needed from the
individual to properly determine eligibility for the CARES Act UC programs. In
determining if the individual is without fault under these circumstances, some
examples of what states might review include verbal or written statements from
the individual explaining the confusion they experienced or screenshots of the
application questions at the time the individual submitted their original
information. Finding an individual to be without fault under these circumstances
is fact-specific and must be done on a case-by-case basis.
While many non-fraud overpayments scenarios may be categorized as without
fault, states may not categorically equate non-fraud overpayments as being made
without fault on the part of an individual. Not all non-fraud overpayments are
without fault on the part of the individual.
B. Such repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience. To waive
recovery of the resulting overpayment, in addition to the payment having been
made without fault of the individual, the state must also determine that repayment
would be contrary to equity and good conscience. The state may defer to state
law in defining what it means for repayment to be contrary to equity and good
conscience.
Alternatively, where state law does not provide a definition of equity and good
conscience, or where the state chooses to defer to federal authority for waiving
recovery of an overpayment under the CARES Act UC programs, the state may
use the standard provided in Section 4.d.i. of UIPL No. 20-21. This standard
provides that recovery would be contrary to equity and good conscience when at
least one of three circumstances exists: (1) recovery would cause financial
hardship to the person from whom it is sought; (2) the recipient of the
overpayment can show (regardless of their financial situation) that due to the
notice that such payment would be made or because of the incorrect payment,
either they have relinquished a valuable right or changed positions for the worse;
or (3) recovery would be unconscionable under the circumstances. The following
table provides some examples for each of these circumstances.
Figure 1: Federal Definition for Recovery Being Against Equity and Good Conscience
Definition of recovery being Examples (non-exhaustive)
against equity and good
conscience
1 It would cause financial • A review of the individual’s income and debts (including copies of pay
hardship to the person for records and bills) reflects the hardship caused by having to repay an
whom it is sought; or overpayment because the individual needs much of their current
income and liquid assets (including the CARES Act benefits received)
to meet ordinary and necessary living expenses and liabilities.
Examples of debts may include items such as utility bills, child care
expenses, student loans, medical bills, etc.
2 The recipient of the • The individual incurred a financial obligation by signing a more
overpayment can show expensive apartment lease based on benefit payments that they
(regardless of their financial received. The individual is now in a worse financial position than if
circumstances) that due to the they had not received the benefits.
notice that such payment • The individual relied on the benefit payment and took out a loan to
would be made or because of start a new business, in which they have already invested the benefit
the incorrect payment, either payment they received. Repayment of their overpayment may cause
they have relinquished a them to default on the loan, resulting in criminal or civil actions.
valuable right or changed • The individual passed up state assistance because they received
positions for the worse; or CARES Act UC benefit payments and thought they would not need
additional financial assistance from the state.
3 Recovery would be • It would be extremely unfair to require repayment when the individual
unconscionable under the was not at fault for receiving the overpayment. Requiring repayment
circumstances now would undermine many individuals’ financial stability and the
purposes for which the benefits were paid.
• See Attachment I to this UIPL for additional examples of scenarios
approved for blanket waiver where recovery would be unconscionable
under the circumstances.
ii. Scenarios under which states may waive recovery using a blanket waiver process
for overpayments under the CARES Act UC programs. The Department has
identified a total of seven scenarios as permissible scenarios for states to apply and
use blanket waivers, two of which were previously approved under Section 4.d.iii. of
UIPL No. 20-21. As described below, states may request that additional scenarios be
considered for approval.
These approved blanket waiver scenarios permit the state, under the limited
authorized circumstances, to process the waiver of recovery for individual
overpayments that do not require additional fact-finding or submission of individual
requests. These scenarios also permit the state to process the waiver of recovery for
multiple overpayments meeting one of the approved scenarios simultaneously based
on a single set of facts. States may process waiving recovery for overpayments under
these approved scenarios without requiring individuals to submit requests. Where
feasible, the state should proactively identify individuals eligible for a blanket waiver.
If a state is unable to identify whether an overpayment falls within the parameters of
an approved scenario, the state may not use the blanket waiver process. Instead, the
state may consider waiving recovery of the overpayment on an individual, case-by-
case basis as described in Section 5 of UIPL No. 23-80 and in accordance with the
criteria described in Section 4.c.i. of this UIPL.
Additionally, as discussed earlier, states may not waive recovery activities for
fraudulent overpayments. States must take care to ensure that overpayments resulting
from cases of known ID fraud are not included in processing blanket waivers.
A. Approved seven scenarios for states to use blanket waivers. Attachment I to this
UIPL provides examples and an explanation as to how the affected individuals
within these scenarios are determined to be without fault in the creation of these
overpayments and how recovery would be contrary to equity and good conscience
based on a single set of facts.
Group 1: Scenario(s) applicable to the PUA, FPUC, MEUC, and PEUC
programs, as well as the first week of regular UC that is reimbursed in
accordance with Section 2105 of the CARES Act, as amended.
1. The individual answered “no” to being able to work and available for
work and the state paid PUA or PEUC without adjudicating the eligibility
issue. Upon requesting additional information from the individual, the
individual either did not respond or the individual confirmed that they
were not able to work nor available for work for the week in question,
resulting in an overpayment for that week.
Group 2: Scenario(s) applicable to the PUA, MEUC (where applicable), and
PEUC programs. Because the individual was still eligible for unemployment
benefits for a given week, these scenarios do not involve overpayments under the
FPUC program. Because MEUC is not payable under the PUA program, there
may be claims involving overpayments under the MEUC program.
2. When an individual is eligible for payment under an unemployment
benefit program for a given week, but through no fault of the individual,
they were instead incorrectly paid under either the PUA or PEUC program
at a higher WBA. (This scenario was previously approved in Section
4.d.iii.A. of UIPL No. 20-21).
3. The state paid the wrong amount of dependents’ allowance (DA) on a
PUA or PEUC claim because the state, through no fault of the individual,
used the wrong amount when calculating the DA, resulting in an
overpayment equal to a minimal difference in DA for each paid week.
Group 3: Scenario(s) applicable to the PUA and FPUC (where applicable)
programs.
4. The individual answered “no” to being unemployed, partially unemployed,
or unable or unavailable to work because of the approved COVID-19
related reasons and the state paid PUA anyway. Upon requesting a new
self-certification, the individual either did not respond or the individual
confirmed that none of the approved COVID-19 related reasons were
applicable, and the state’s payment resulted in an overpayment for that
week.
Group 4: Scenario(s) applicable to the PUA program. Because the individual
was still eligible for unemployment benefits for a given week, these scenarios do
not involve overpayments under the FPUC program.
5. Through no fault of the individual, the state paid the individual a
minimum PUA WBA based on Disaster Unemployment Assistance
(DUA) guidance that was higher than the state’s minimum PUA WBA
provided in UIPL No. 03-20, which resulted in an overpayment. (This
scenario was previously approved in Section 4.d.iii.A. of UIPL No. 20-
21).
6. The individual complied with instructions from the state to submit proof
of earnings to be used in calculating their PUA WBA. However, through
no fault of the individual, the state’s instructions were either inadequate or
the state incorrectly processed this calculation using self-employment
gross income instead of net income or documents from an inapplicable tax
year, resulting in an incorrect higher PUA WBA. The state establishes an
overpayment for the difference in PUA WBA.
Group 5: Scenario(s) applicable to the MEUC program
7. The individual complied with instructions from the state to submit proof
of self-employment earnings to be used in establishing eligibility for
MEUC. However, through no fault of the individual, the state’s
instructions were either inadequate or the state incorrectly processed this
calculation using the incorrect self-employment income or based on
documents from an inapplicable tax year, resulting in the individual
incorrectly being determined eligible for MEUC. The state establishes an
overpayment for any weeks of MEUC that were paid.
B. Requesting additional scenarios to be considered for blanket waivers. This UIPL
provides five scenarios in addition to the two previously approved in Section
4.d.iii. of UIPL No. 20-21. Outside of these approved scenarios, the Department
has a long-standing interpretation that Sections 303(a)(1) and (a)(5), SSA, require
individualized determinations of an individual’s eligibility for a waiver of
recovery and do not permit waivers of recovery to be granted on a blanket basis.
Blanket waivers are not permitted for the regular UC program, except where
noted for the first week of regular UC that is reimbursed in accordance with
Section 2105 of the CARES Act, as amended.
States that wish to propose additional scenarios within the context of the CARES
Act UC programs to be considered for blanket waivers may do so by submitting
the form contained in Attachment II to this UIPL to [email protected] with a
copy to the appropriate ETA Regional Office.6 The Department will strive to
provide a response of approval or disapproval within 14 days of receipt. If
circumstances prohibit the Department from meeting this deadline, the
Department will inform the state of its progress in reviewing the request.
Additional scenarios may not be implemented unless and until approved by ETA.
C. Use of automated data processing when issuing blanket waivers for CARES Act
UC programs. When processing blanket waivers for CARES Act UC programs
within the limited parameters involving these seven approved scenarios outlined
in Section 4.c.ii. of this UIPL, states may automate the determinations on the
waivers of recovery. Individual fact-finding is not required (see Option #1 under
Section 4.c.iii.A. of this UIPL for notification requirements).
iii. Exercising the authority to waive recovery of overpayments for the CARES Act UC
programs. As described in Section 4.d. of UIPL No. 20-21, federal law sets out the
authority to waive recovery of overpayments under the CARES Act UC programs. It
is a matter of state discretion whether to exercise this waiver authority.
A. Action required from the state. Section 4.d.iv. of UIPL No. 20-21 provided the
following three options for states. This UIPL renumbers these options and further
expands on these options. States may choose both Options #1 and #2, which
would provide for waiving recovery on an individual, case-by-case basis and for
blanket waivers.
• Option #1: Under limited circumstances, the state may choose to process
blanket waivers for the specific scenarios approved by the Department in
Section 4.c.ii. of this UIPL.
Options for the process used in evaluating blanket waiver eligibility. States
may only waive recovery using a blanket waiver process under the
scenarios approved by the Department, as described in Section 4.c.ii. of this
UIPL.
The Department recognizes that not all blanket waiver scenarios will apply
to every state. A state may choose to exercise blanket waiver authority for
some approved scenarios and not for others.
For states implementing Option #1: If an individual has a non-fault
overpayment and does not fit within one of the approved blanket waiver
scenarios, the state must address their eligibility for a waiver individually
as described in Option #2.
Notification requirements when the state determines through the blanket
waiver process that an overpayment is eligible for a waiver of recovery.
As stated earlier, the state must first establish the overpayment by
investigating each individual case and providing a written determination
with appeal rights. When a state approves the waiver for recovering an
overpayment under one of the approved blanket waiver scenarios, the state
must also notify each individual that a waiver of recovery has been granted.
Although this notification that an overpayment is eligible for a waiver of
recovery need not include formal appeal rights, the state must provide
instructions to the individual on how to request a reconsideration of the
approved waiver if the individual does not wish to have recovery of the
overpayment waived. Because the overpayment itself is established and
even though recovery is waived, there may be peripheral considerations
that warrant the individual choosing not to have recovery waived.
Attachment III to this UIPL provides sample language for states to use in
communicating approval of a waiver with individuals.
Further, a state may identify an individual who is eligible for a waiver of
recovery under the approved blanket waiver scenarios at the same time the
overpayment is being established. The state may choose to provide a single
notice to the individual that both establishes the overpayment and waives
recovery. When drafting a combined notice, the state may include an
introductory explanation as to why notice is being sent when payment is
not required. An example of this explanation includes: “You are receiving
this notice because you received unemployment benefits to which you are
not entitled and federal law requires that you be notified of an
overpayment. However, you do not need to repay these benefits because
these payments were issued incorrectly through no fault of your own, and
repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience.”
Within that single notice, the state must include the required information
for written determinations, including appeal rights to protest the
establishment of the overpayment (see Section 4.a. of UIPL No. 01-16), in
addition to an explanation that recovery of this overpayment is waived and
providing instructions to the individual on how to request a reconsideration
if they do not wish to have recovery of the overpayment waived (see
Sample Letter in Attachment III to this UIPL).
• Option #2: Exercise the authority to waive recovery of certain
overpayments for the CARES Act UC programs on an individual, case-by-
case basis, as described in Section 4.d.ii. of UIPL No. 20-21.
Determining if an overpayment meets the criteria for waiving recovery.
Under this option, a state may choose to use the definitions provided in its
state UC law to waive recovery of the overpayment, provided its state UC
law, at a minimum, adheres to the minimum federal requirements of the
CARES Act. Specifically, to waive recovery, the individual must be
without fault in the creation of the overpayment and recovery must be
contrary to equity and good conscience. Alternatively, a state may choose
to use the federal standards provided in Section 4.c.i. of this UIPL,
regardless of whether its state UC law provides authority to waive recovery
of overpayments.
Options for the process used in evaluating waiver eligibility. In
determining whether an overpayment satisfies the waiver criteria, the state
must review the overpayment on an individual, case-by-case basis. As
described in Section 5 of UIPL No. 23-80, the state may conduct this
review by either: (1) making a determination as to the applicability of the
waiver provision as part of the determination process on every
overpayment case (without requiring an individual to request such a
waiver); or (2) providing, as part of each overpayment determination,
information about the waiver provision and provide that individuals may
request consideration of a waiver and receive an appealable determination
on the actions taken. Many states chose to evaluate eligibility for a waiver
of recovery according to (2), based on an individual’s request for
consideration.
Notification requirements when the state provides for individual waiver
requests. As described in Section 4.d.iv.A. of UIPL No. 20-21, if the state
chooses to exercise Option #2 as described in (2) in the above paragraph
(i.e., by requiring individuals to submit a request for waiver consideration),
the state must notify all individuals with a non-fault overpayment of their
ability to request a waiver. Appeal rights must be included as part of the
determination establishing the overpayment, though instructions on how to
request a waiver may be done as a separate notice. Where feasible, the
Department encourages states to combine communications and provide
instructions in plain language. This reduces confusion for individuals and
may mitigate unnecessary appeals.
If the state requires individuals to submit a request for waiver
consideration, upon receipt of the waiver request, the state must pause
further collections until a determination of waiver eligibility is made.
Notification requirements when the state determines, on an individual case-
by-case basis, if an individual is eligible for a waiver of recovery. When a
state determines whether the individual is eligible for the requested waiver,
the state must notify each individual in writing of the outcome.
▪ Individual is not eligible for a waiver of recovery: As described in
Section 6, of UIPL No. 23-80, “[a] decision not to waive recovery of
the overpaid benefits…constitutes a denial of a claim for [UC] within
the meaning of Section 303(a)(3)[, SSA]. In such circumstances, the
claimant must have the right to appeal such a decision and to have
[their] contention for waiver considered and decided by the appellate
tribunal on its merits in accordance with any evidence which bears
upon the issue.”
▪ Individual is eligible for a waiver of recovery: When a state chooses to
exercise Option #2 as described in (1) in the above paragraph on
Options for the process used in evaluating waiver eligibility (i.e., by
making a determination on the applicability of the waiver provision for
every overpayment determination) and approves the waiver of
recovery without a request from the individual, the state must provide
instructions to the individual on how to request a reconsideration of
the approved waiver if the individual does not wish to have recovery
of the overpayment waived.
If the individual requested the waiver of recovery and is approved,
written notice is required though the state does not need to provide
instructions on how to request a reconsideration of the approved
waiver.
Attachment III to this UIPL provides sample language for states to use in
communicating approval of a waiver with individuals.
• Option #3: Not exercise the authority to waive recovery of certain
overpayments for these CARES Act UC programs.
As noted earlier in this UIPL, seeking recovery of these overpayments from
individuals who did not commit fraud and were without fault in receiving the
overpayment, especially in light of the economic effects of the pandemic, creates
an extraordinary hardship on working families. The Department strongly
encourages states to exercise the waiver authority provided in the CARES Act, as
amended, in qualifying cases.
B. Requirements for states exercising CARES Act waiver authority. As described in
Section 4.a.i. of this UIPL, the state may choose to apply this provision to some or
all of the CARES Act UC programs. A state choosing to exercise the waiver
authority under Options #1 and #2 must apply this practice to all overpayments
created since the beginning of the CARES Act UC program(s). For example, if a
state decides to implement Option #2 with regards to PUA claims in January 2022
as they resolve workload items pending for weeks of unemployment ending prior
to the end of the PUA program, the state must also retroactively identify and
notify individuals with previously-established PUA overpayments of their
potential waiver eligibility, consistent with Section 4.d.iv.A. of UIPL No. 20-21.
Additionally, as described in Section 4.d.iv.B. of UIPL No. 20-21, if recovery of
an overpayment is waived, the state must refund any amounts that were collected
prior to the determination of the waiver for the applicable overpayment. There is
one exception to this refund requirement: specifically, that the state may not issue
a refund for any benefits that were restored and then subsequently paid to the
individual. For example, a state may have assessed an overpayment for particular
weeks of unemployment and, upon collecting that overpayment amount from the
individual, restored a balance to the individual’s claim. This restored balance
allowed the individual to collect additional weeks of unemployment benefits that
covered the amount of the collected overpayment. In such cases, the state may
not issue a refund.
d. Collection of Overpayments for CARES Act UC Programs. When an overpayment
does not meet the criteria for recovery to be waived or the state does not exercise the
authority to waive certain overpayments, the state must require the individual to repay the
amount to which they were not entitled (i.e., the overpayment).7
As described in Section 4.c. of UIPL No. 20-21, states may not apply interest or other
collection costs to overpayments in the CARES Act UC programs, regardless of whether
such overpayments are considered fraudulent or non-fraudulent. If a state previously
assessed interest and other collection costs under the CARES Act UC programs, the state
must reconsider these assessments and refund any money collected towards such
payment of interest and other collection costs. Section 4.d.i.B. of this UIPL explicitly
addresses overpayments, penalties, and administrative fees under TOP.
i. Required collection activities. As described in Section 4.b. of UIPL No. 23-20, states
must complete the same recovery activities for the CARES Act UC programs as
required for the regular UC program: benefit offsets (including cross-program offsets
under the Cross Program Offset Recovery Agreement (CPORA) and interstate
reciprocal offsets under the Interstate Reciprocal Offset Recovery Arrangement
(IRORA)) and participation in the TOP.
A. Benefit offsets within the context of the CARES Act UC programs.
1. Recovering overpayments via benefit offset in general. States must offset
regular UC and other state and federal UC programs to recover
overpayments under the CARES Act UC programs, as described in
Question 16 in Attachment I to UIPL No. 13-20, Change 1, and further
clarified in Section 5 of UIPL No. 13-20, Change 2. States have
significant flexibility in the way that they implement the benefit offset
requirement, such as limiting the amount to be deducted from each
payment. See Section 4.b. of UIPL No. 05-13.
Conversely, states must offset benefits paid under the CARES Act UC
programs to recover overpayments for other UC programs. However, as
referenced in Attachment I to UIPL No. 20-21 and except as described in
clause (2) below, states may not deduct more than 50 percent of the
CARES Act benefit to recover such overpayments.
Additionally, specific to overpayments under the FPUC, MEUC, PEUC
programs, as well as the first week of regular UC that is reimbursed in
accordance with Section 2105 of the CARES Act, as amended, such
offsets are limited to “the 3-year period after the date such individuals
received the payment.”8 The state must collect in accordance with the
same procedures as apply to the recovery of overpayments of regular UC –
except that states do not have the authority to conduct benefit offsets after
this three-year period expires. This same three-year limitation does not
apply to overpayments under the PUA program.
2. Recovering overpayments when switching individuals between programs.
States vary in how they establish the overpayment when an individual is
eligible for payment under an unemployment benefit program for a given
week, but they were incorrectly paid under a different program. Some
states may transfer the weeks from the incorrect program to the correct
program and establish an overpayment amount equal to the difference in
WBA for each applicable week (if the original program paid a higher
WBA than the correct program).
Other states may create an overpayment for the entire amount paid on the
incorrect program and then use an “offset workaround” when processing
weeks under the correct program to recover the amount overpaid. In this
“offset workaround,” the state is not bound to the 50 percent limitation
referenced in clause (1) above. Under the authority of the CARES Act, as
amended, the state may operationally use an “offset workaround” to
withhold 100 percent of the benefit due for each week under the correct
program to recover the overpayment established on the incorrect program,
leaving a remaining overpayment balance equal to the difference in WBA
(if any) for each applicable week. The state may subsequently waive
recovery of this overpayment balance under the approved blanket waiver
scenarios (see Section 4.c.ii.A.2. of this UIPL).
Further, if FPUC was issued for the week of unemployment paid under the
incorrect program, states should not pay FPUC a second time for the same
week of unemployment under the correct program. As described in
Section C.3. of UIPL No. 15-20, states have some flexibility in how they
issued the FPUC payment: states could either provide FPUC as an amount
paid at the same time and in the same manner as the underlying benefit
amount or as a separate payment for the same week of unemployment as
the underlying benefit amount. Operationally, it is also permissible for
states to use an “offset workaround” to transfer FPUC payments correctly.
B. TOP within the context of the CARES Act UC programs. The state must use
TOP recovery for any overpayment that meets the requirement of a “covered UC
debt,” as described in Questions 17 and 18 of Attachment I to UIPL No. 13-20,
Change 1. This includes any overpayment that is determined to be fraudulent or
that is the result of a person’s failure to report earnings, as well as any penalties.9
No other type of overpayment under the CARES Act UC programs may be
submitted to TOP. Although federal law does not specify the frequency of
submission of covered UC debt to TOP, the state is expected to submit the
required debts at some time during each calendar year.
TOP administrative fees. Administrative fees are deducted from the amounts
collected through TOP, as described in Section 6 of UIPL No. 02-09. States are
instructed to examine their laws to determine if they may assess administrative
fees and add them to the covered UC debt. The result would be that 100 percent
of the covered UC debt is returned to the state, and the individual would pay any
additional processing costs through a further reduction to any tax refund.
Otherwise, amounts to pay administrative fees may be withheld from the debts
themselves. Since nothing in federal law explicitly addresses this situation, it is a
matter of state law. TOP administrative fees are not considered “other collection
costs” as described in Section 4.c. of UIPL No. 20-21. The state’s process for
handling TOP administrative fees for the regular UC program must also be
applied to the CARES Act programs.
ii. Additional collection activities. As described in Section 4.b. of UIPL No. 23-20, the
Department strongly encourages states to use additional recovery activities, where
allowed by state law, both during and after the three-year period described above.
This includes negotiating repayment plans with individuals, accepting repayments
through various methods, and other activities such as state income tax offset, wage
garnishment, civil actions, property liens, and collection agency referrals.
5. Inquiries. Please direct inquiries to [email protected] with a copy to the appropriate ETA
Regional Office.
6. References.
• American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), including Title IX, Subtitle A, Crisis
Support for Unemployed Workers (Pub. L. 117-2);
• Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, including Division N, Title II, Subtitle A, the
Continued Assistance for Unemployed Workers Act of 2020 (Continued Assistance Act)
(Pub. L. 116-260);
• Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, including Title II,
Subtitle A, Relief for Workers Affected by Coronavirus Act (Pub. L. 116-136);
• Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA) (Pub. L. 112-40);
• Section 303 of the Social Security Act (SSA) (42 U.S.C. §503);
• 20 C.F.R. Part 625;
• UIPL No. 23-21, Grant Opportunity for Promoting Equitable Access to Unemployment
Compensation (UC) Programs, issued August 17, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=7400;
• UIPL No. 22-21, Grant Opportunity to Support States with Fraud Detection and
Prevention, Including Identity Verification and Overpayment Recovery Activities, in All
Unemployment Compensation (UC) Programs, issued August 11, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?docn=4240;
• UIPL No. 20-21, State Instructions for Assessing Fraud Penalties and Processing
Overpayment Waivers under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act, as Amended, issued May 5, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=6830;
• UIPL No. 16-21, Identity Verification for Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claims, issued
April 13, 2021, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=9141;
• UIPL No. 14-21, Change 1, State Responsibilities After the Temporary Unemployment
Benefit Programs under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act, as amended, End Due to State Termination of Administration or When the Programs
Expire, issued July 12, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=9502;
• UIPL No. 14-21, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) – Key Unemployment
Insurance (UI) Provisions, issued March 15, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=5669;
• UIPL No. 09-21, Continued Assistance for Unemployed Workers Act of 2020 (Continued
Assistance Act) - Summary of Key Unemployment Insurance (UI) Provisions, issued
December 30, 2020, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=3831;
• UIPL No. 28-20, Change 2, Additional Funding to Assist with Strengthening Fraud
Detection and Prevention Efforts and the Recovery of Overpayments in the Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment
Compensation (PEUC) Programs, as well as Guidance on Processes for Combatting
Identity Fraud, issued August 11, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=7207;
• UIPL No. 28-20, Change 1, Additional Funding for Identity Verification or Verification
of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) Claimants and Funding to Assist with
Efforts to Prevent and Detect Fraud and Identity Theft as well as Recover Fraud
Overpayments in the PUA and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(PEUC) Programs, issued January 15, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=9897;
• UIPL No. 28-20, Addressing Fraud in the Unemployment Insurance (UI) System and
Providing States with Funding to Assist with Efforts to Prevent and Detect Fraud and
Identity Theft and Recover Fraud Overpayments in the Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance (PUA) and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC)
Programs, issued August 31, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=8044;
• UIPL No. 23-20, Program Integrity for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program and
the UI Programs Authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act of 2020 – Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC),
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment
Compensation (PEUC) Programs, issued May 11, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=4621;
• UIPL No. 20-20, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 -
Operating, Financial, and Reporting Instructions for Section 2105: Temporary Full
Federal Funding of the First Week of Compensable Regular Unemployment for States
with No Waiting Week, issued April 30, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?docn=6324;
• UIPL No. 17-20, Change 3, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) – Pandemic
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) Program: Extension, Elimination of
Transition Rule, Increase in Total Benefits, and Extension of Coordination Rule, issued
March 26, 2021, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=9169;
• UIPL No. 17-20, Change 2, Continued Assistance for Unemployed Workers Act of 2020 –
Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) Program: Extension,
Transition Rule, Increase in Total Benefits, and Coordination Rules, issued December
31, 2020, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?docn=9291;
• UIPL No 17-20, Change 1, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
of 2020-Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) Program:
Questions and Answers, and Revised Reporting Instructions for the PEUC ETA 227,
issued May 13, 2020, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=8689;
• UIPL No. 17-20, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020-
Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) Program Operating,
Financial, and Reporting Instructions, issued April 10, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=8452;
• UIPL No. 16-20, Change 6, Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) Program:
Updated Operating Instructions and Reporting Changes, issued September 3, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=4801;
• UIPL No. 16-20, Change 4, Continued Assistance to Unemployed Workers Act of 2020-
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) Program: Updated Operating Instructions
and Reporting Changes, issued January 8, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=6973;
• UIPL No. 16-20, Change 2, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act of 2020 - Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) Additional Questions and
Answers, issued July 21, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=5479;
• UIPL No. 15-20, Change 4, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) – Extensions to
the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) Program and Mixed
Earners Unemployment Compensation (MEUC) Program, issued March 26, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?docn=3728;
• UIPL No. 15-20, Change 3, Continued Assistance for Unemployed Workers (Continued
Assistance) Act of 2020 - Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC)
Program Reauthorization and Modification and Mixed Earners Unemployment
Compensation (MEUC) Program Operating, Reporting, and Financial Instructions,
issued January 5, 2021, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=6122;
• UIPL No. 15-20, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 -
Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) Program Operating,
Financial, and Reporting Instructions, issued April 4, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=9297;
• UIPL No. 14-20, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 –
Summary of Key Unemployment Insurance (UI) Provisions and Temporary Emergency
State Staffing Flexibility, issued April 2, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=3390;
• UIPL No. 13-20, Change 2, Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Division D
Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act of 2020 (EUISAA) –
Review of State Compliance for Receipt of Emergency Administrative Grants and
Clarification on Benefit Offset Requirements, issued June 3, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?docn=8645;
• UIPL No. 13-20, Change 1, Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Division D
Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act of 2020 (EUISAA) –
Reporting Instructions, Modifications to Emergency Administrative Grants Application
Requirement, and Questions and Answers, issued May 4, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=5374;
• UIPL No. 03-20, Minimum Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) Weekly Benefit
Amount: January 1 - March 31, 2020, issued December 12, 2019,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=3675;
• UIPL No. 04-17, Change 1, Requirement for States to Refer Allegations of
Unemployment Compensation (UC) Fraud, Waste, Abuse, Mismanagement, or
Misconduct to the Department of Labor’s (Department) Office of Inspector General’s
(DOL-OIG) and to Disclose Information Related to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act to DOL-OIG for Purposes of UC Fraud Investigations
and Audits, issued August 3, 2021,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=5817;
• UIPL No. 04-17, Disclosure of Confidential Unemployment Compensation (UC)
Information to the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), issued
December 16, 2016, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=7523;
• UIPL No. 02-16, Change 1, State Responsibilities for Ensuring Access to Unemployment
Insurance Benefits, Services, and Information, issued May 11, 2020,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=5491;
• UIPL No. 02-16, State Responsibilities for Ensuring Access to Unemployment Insurance
Benefits, issued October 1, 2015,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=4233;
• UIPL No. 01-16, Federal Requirements to Protect Individual Rights in State
Unemployment Compensation Overpayment Prevention and Recovery Procedures, issued
October 1, 2015, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=5763;
• UIPL No. 05-13, Work Search and Overpayment Offset Provisions Added to Permanent
Federal Unemployment Compensation Law by Title II, Subtitle A of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2021, issued January 10, 2013,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=3698;
• UIPL No. 02-12, Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program Integrity – Amendments
made by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA), issued
December 20, 2011, https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=6707;
• UIPL No. 02-09, Recovery of Unemployment Compensation Debts Due to Fraud from
Federal Income Tax Refunds, issued November 28, 2008,
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2687; and
• UIPL No. 23-80, Implementation of Wavier of Overpayment Provisions in State UI Laws,
issued March 11, 1980, https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl80/uipl_2380.htm.10
7. Attachment(s).
• Attachment I: Evaluation of Eligibility for Approved Blanket Waiver Scenarios.
• Attachment II: Requesting Additional Blanket Waiver Circumstances under the CARES
Act UC Programs.
• Attachment III: Sample Communication to Claimants for Approved Blanket Waiver
Circumstances.
• Attachment IV: Sample Language for State Websites.
Attachment I to UIPL No. 20-21, Change 1
Evaluation of Eligibility for Approved Blanket Waiver Scenarios
As described in Section 4.c.ii. of this UIPL, the Department has approved the following seven
scenarios as permissible scenarios for states to apply and use the blanket waiver process to waive
recovery of an established overpayment (two of which were previously approved under Section
4.d.iii. of UIPL No. 20-21). This attachment provides an explanation as to how the affected
individuals are considered without fault in the creation of these overpayments and how recovery
would be contrary to equity and good conscience for all individuals based on a single set of facts.
States may only waive recovery using a blanket waiver process under these approved scenarios.
States may continue to consider waiving recovery of overpayments that do not fall within the
approved scenarios or when the state is unable to identify if the claim falls within the parameters
of an approved scenario by evaluating on an individual, case-by-case basis as described in
Section 5 of UIPL No. 23-80 and in accordance with the criteria described in Section 4.c.i. of
this UIPL.
Group 1: Scenario(s) applicable to the PUA, FPUC, MEUC, and PEUC programs, as well as
the first week of regular UC that is reimbursed in accordance with Section 2105 of the CARES
Act, as amended.
1. The individual answered “no” to being able to work and available for work and the
state paid PUA or PEUC without adjudicating the eligibility issue. Upon requesting
additional information, the individual either did not respond or confirmed that they
were not able to work nor available for work for the week in question, and the state
continued to pay, resulting in an overpayment for that week.
The individual is without fault: In this scenario, the individual is without fault as they
provided accurate information at the outset which the state did not consider prior to
paying the individual. If the individual did not respond to a request for confirmation, or
confirmed that they were not able to work or available for work, payments after the
confirmation or failure to confirm are still without fault on the part of the individual
because the state continued to pay benefits rather than ceasing benefit payments.
Therefore, the state’s action caused the overpayment. Overpayments under these
circumstances occurred because a unique confluence of circumstances (i.e., an avalanche
of unemployment claims precipitated by a pandemic, implementation of multiple new
programs, and public and political pressure to implement new programs rapidly) hindered
the states’ ability to process claims timely and to the extent they would have under
normal circumstances.
Repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience: Repayment is contrary to
equity and good conscience when it would be extremely unfair to require repayment. It
would be extremely unfair to require repayment when the individual was not at fault for
receiving the overpayment and the state would be requiring repayment of benefits that
were designed to support individuals during the pandemic, which created financial
uncertainty for much of the country at that time. Individuals generally relied on these
payments for their livelihoods and made purchases and entered into financial
commitments based on these payments. Requiring repayment now would undermine
many individuals’ financial stability and undermine the purposes for which the benefits
were paid.
Group 2: Scenario(s) applicable to the PUA, MEUC (where applicable), and PEUC programs.
Because the individual was still eligible for unemployment benefits for a given week, these
scenarios do not involve overpayments under the FPUC program. Because MEUC is not
payable under the PUA program, there may be claims involving overpayments under the MEUC
program.
2. When an individual is eligible for payment under an unemployment benefit
program for a given week, but through no fault of the individual, they were instead
incorrectly paid under either the PUA or PEUC program at a higher weekly benefit
amount (WBA). This approved scenario is described in more detail under Section
4.d.iii.A. of UIPL No. 20-21.
This refers to the overpayment created by a difference in WBAs across programs, not the
entirety of the overpayment on one claim (see Section 4.d.i.A.2. of this UIPL). For
example, an individual received five weeks of PUA at a $300 WBA (total = $1,500) for
weeks where they were actually eligible for regular UC at a $200 WBA (total = $1,000).
The $500 difference because of a lower WBA is eligible for a blanket waiver (i.e., the
additional amount paid to the individual under PUA instead of regular UC). The
remaining $1,000 from the original PUA claim should be resolved when the state
transitions such weeks from PUA to regular UC.
3. The state paid the wrong amount of dependents’ allowance (DA) on a PUA or PEUC
claim because the state, through no fault of the individual, used the wrong amount
when calculating the DA, resulting in an overpayment equal to a minimal difference
in DA for each paid week.
The individual is without fault: Overpayments under these circumstances occurred
because a unique confluence of circumstances (i.e., an avalanche of unemployment
claims precipitated by a pandemic, implementation of multiple new programs, new PUA
standalone systems, and antiquated computer systems) hindered the states’ ability to
adequately update or test all PUA and PEUC system scenarios and distribute payments
properly. Under this circumstance, individual recipients of payments were without fault
for the overpayments as state system/technology issues caused the overpayment.
Repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience: Repayment is contrary to
equity and good conscience when it would be extremely unfair to require repayment. It
would be extremely unfair to require repayment when the individual was not at fault for
receiving the overpayment and the state would be requiring repayment of benefits that
were designed to support individuals during the pandemic, which created financial
uncertainty for much of the country at that time. Individuals generally relied on these
payments for their livelihoods and made purchases and entered into financial
commitments based on these payments. Requiring repayment now would undermine
many individuals’ financial stability and undermine the purposes for which the benefits
were paid. Additionally, recovering overpayments in this scenario could be extremely
unfair because it could impact an individuals’ ability to support their dependents.
Group 3: Scenario(s) applicable to the PUA and FPUC (where applicable) programs.
4. The individual answered “no” to being unemployed, partially unemployed, or
unable or unavailable to work because of the approved COVID-19 related reasons
and the state paid PUA anyway. Upon requesting a new self-certification, the
individual either did not respond or confirmed that none of the approved COVID-
19 related reasons were applicable, and the state’s payment resulted in an
overpayment for that week. See Attachment I to UIPL No. 16-20, Change 6, for a full
list of the approved COVID-19 related reasons.
The individual is without fault: In this scenario, the individual was without fault for the
overpayment as they provided accurate information on their initial application which the
state did not consider prior to paying the individual which created the overpayment. In
addition, once information was requested and the individual failed to respond or
confirmed the information, the state continued to pay benefits. Overpayments under
these circumstances occurred because a unique confluence of circumstances (i.e., an
avalanche of unemployment claims precipitated by a pandemic, implementation of
multiple new programs, and public and political pressure to implement new programs
rapidly) hindered the states’ ability to process claims timely and to the extent they would
have under normal circumstances.
Repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience: Repayment is contrary to
equity and good conscience when it would be extremely unfair to require repayment. It
would be extremely unfair to require repayment when the individual was not at fault for
receiving the overpayment and the state would be requiring repayment of benefits that
were designed to support individuals during the pandemic, which created financial
uncertainty for much of the country at that time. Individuals generally relied on these
payments for their livelihoods and made purchases and entered into financial
commitments based on these payments. Requiring repayment now would undermine
many individuals’ financial stability and undermine the purposes for which the benefits
were paid.
Group 4: Scenario(s) applicable to the PUA program. Because the individual was still eligible
for unemployment benefits for a given week, these scenarios do not involve overpayments under
the FPUC program.
5. Through no fault of the individual, the state paid the individual a minimum PUA
WBA based on Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) guidance that was higher
than the state’s minimum PUA WBA provided in UIPL No. 03-20, which resulted in
an overpayment. This approved scenario is described in more detail under Section
4.d.iii.B. of UIPL No. 20-21.
6. The individual complied with instructions from the state to submit proof of earnings
to be used in calculating their PUA WBA. However, the state’s instructions were
either inadequate or the state incorrectly processed this calculation using self-
employment gross income instead of net income or documents from an inapplicable
tax year, resulting in an incorrect higher PUA WBA. The state establishes an
overpayment for the difference in PUA WBA.
The individual is without fault: Under this circumstance, states were serving a new
population of unemployed workers (contractors, self-employed, gig economy) who were
unfamiliar with the unemployment program, new monetary eligibility requirements, and
UI systems. The states provided either no guidance or inadequate guidance for providing
the correct income information. States struggled at the outset to clearly articulate income
requirements to this new population, and continuously worked to change and improve
their documents and forms to try to better convey this requirement through the CARES
Act period. Individual recipients of payments were without fault for the overpayments as
they complied with states’ instructions (which did not adequately convey the
requirement) on providing income information. Because the states failed to adequately
inform claimants about the requirement, individuals are without fault for overpayments
created using gross income instead of net income.
Repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience: Repayment is contrary to
equity and good conscience when it would be extremely unfair to require repayment. It
would be extremely unfair to require repayment when the individual was not at fault for
receiving the overpayment and the state would be requiring repayment of benefits that
were designed to support individuals during the pandemic, which created financial
uncertainty for much of the country at that time. Individuals generally relied on these
payments for their livelihoods and made purchases and entered into financial
commitments based on these payments. Requiring repayment now would undermine
many individuals’ financial stability and undermine the purposes for which the benefits
were paid.
Group 5: Scenario(s) applicable to the MEUC program.
7. The individual complied with instructions from the state to submit proof of self-
employment earnings to be used in establishing eligibility for MEUC. However, the
state’s instructions were either inadequate or the state incorrectly processed this
calculation using the incorrect self-employment income or based on documents from
an inapplicable tax year, resulting in the individual incorrectly being determined
eligible for MEUC. The state establishes an overpayment for any weeks of MEUC
that were paid.
The individual is without fault: The state failed to provide clear instructions on how to
report income or which tax year to use for reporting the earnings. As a result, claimants
did not provide the correct information. Overpayments under these circumstances
occurred because a unique confluence of circumstances hindered the states’ ability to
adequately provide proper guidance. Consequently, staff were unable to identify correct
or applicable self-employment income documentation when determining eligibility for
MEUC. Because these problems were created by the state, recipients of MEUC
payments were without fault for these overpayments.
Repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience: Repayment is contrary to
equity and good conscience when it would be extremely unfair to require repayment. It
would be extremely unfair to require repayment when the individual was not at fault for
receiving the overpayment and the state would be requiring repayment of benefits that
were designed to support individuals during the pandemic, which created financial
uncertainty for much of the country at that time. Individuals generally relied on these
payments for their livelihoods and made purchases and entered into financial
commitments based on these payments. Requiring repayment now would undermine
many individuals’ financial stability and undermine the purposes for which the benefits
were paid.
Attachment II to UIPL No. 20-21, Change 1
Requesting Additional Blanket Waiver Scenarios under the
CARES Act UC Programs*
Instructions: States that wish to propose additional scenarios within the context of the CARES Act
UC programs to be considered for blanket waivers may do so by submitting this form to covid-
[email protected] with a copy to the appropriate ETA Regional Office. States are requested to use the
Subject Line: “Additional Scenario for Blanket Waiver Approval.”
States must complete a separate form for each blanket waiver scenario for which the state is
requesting approval.
Unemployment Insurance
Scenario for Blanket Waiver Approval Request
1. State Name:
2. Contact Information of the State Agency Administrator
Name:
Title:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
3. CARES Act Program Lead Information
Name:
Title:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
*
Division A, Title II, Section 2116(a) of the CARES Act states that “Chapter 35 of Title 44, United States Code,
(commonly referred to as the ‘Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995’), shall not apply to the provisions of, and the
amendments made by, this subtitle.” As such, the PRA does not apply to this request.
4. Description of the Scenario Proposed for Blanket Waiver
5. Explain why the individuals affected by the scenario above are without fault in
the creation of the overpayment (see examples provided under approved scenarios in
Attachment I to this UIPL).
6. Explain why repayment of the overpayments indicated in the scenario above would be
contrary to equity and good conscience (see examples provided under approved
scenarios in Attachment I to this UIPL).
7. Description of how the state will apply the blanket waiver scenario (if approved) and
ensure that fraudulent overpayments are not included in its application of the
scenario.
8. What is the number of individuals (known or estimated) who would receive a
blanket waiver under this process, if approved? Provide an explanation of the
methodology used in calculating this number.
9. What is the total dollar amount (known or estimated) that would be waived if the
blanket waiver is approved and the breakdown of amount by CARES Act UC
program? Provide an explanation of the methodology used in calculating this amount.
10. What is the average processing time spent (or would be spent) (known or estimated)
by state staff addressing this scenario if done on an individual, case-by-case
basis? Provide an explanation of the methodology used in calculating this time.
11. List the CARES Act UC programs that would be subject to this blanket waiver
(PEUC, PUA, FPUC, MEUC, first week of regular UC that is reimbursed in
accordance with Section 2105 of the CARES Act, as amended).
Instructions for Completing Questions 4-11 of the Form
4. Description of the scenario proposed for blanket waiver: Briefly describe the reason the state is
requesting the blanket waiver. Include the circumstances under which the overpayments occurred.
5. Explain why the individuals affected by the scenario above are without fault: Describe why
the individuals in this scenario are without fault for the creation of the overpayment. States are
encouraged to reference UIPL No. 20-21 and Attachment I to this UIPL for supporting language.
6. Explain why repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience: Describe why
repayment would:
a. Cause financial hardship to the group of persons for whom it is sought; or
b. Cause the recipient of the overpayment (regardless of their financial circumstances) to
have relinquished a valuable right or changed positions for the worse; or
c. Be unconscionable under the circumstances.
States are encouraged to reference UIPL No. 20-21 and this UIPL for supporting language.
7. Description of how the state will apply the blanket waiver scenario (if approved) and ensure
that fraudulent overpayments are not included in its application of the scenario. Explain how
the state plans to apply the blanket waiver scenario (e.g., will the state run a query against its
computer system, will the state apply the blanket waiver as it identifies such scenarios in working
individual backlog cases). Additionally, explain how the state will ensure that when the state is
applying this proposed blanket waiver scenario, it will not waive recovery activities for fraudulent
overpayment.
8. What is the number of individuals (known or estimated) who would receive a blanket waiver
under this process, if approved?: Provide the estimated (or known total) number of individuals for
whom the state expects to waive overpayments under this proposed blanket waiver request. Provide
an explanation of the methodology used in calculating this number or estimate.
9. What is the total dollar amount (known or estimated) that would be waived?: Provide the
estimated (or known total) dollar amount that the state expects to waive (per CARES Act program)
from this blanket waiver if approved. For example, PUA $1.2M, PEUC $2.1M, FPUC $3.5M.
Provide an explanation of the methodology used in calculating this amount or estimate.
10. What is the average processing time spent (or would be spent) (known or estimated) by
state staff addressing this scenario if done on an individual basis?: Provide the average amount
of time that state staff would normally spend to individually process each waiver if the blanket
waiver is not approved (e.g., estimated 15 minutes per individual waiver). If known or estimated,
include how long would it take to process all individual waivers in this scenario (e.g., 6 months for
all waivers in this scenario). Provide an explanation of the methodology used in calculating these
times or estimates.
11. List the programs that would be subject to this blanket waiver: Indicate the CARES Act
UC program overpayments the state will address with this waiver (PEUC, PUA, FPUC, MEUC,
first week of regular UC that is reimbursed in accordance with Section 2105 of the CARES Act,
as amended). Note that regular UC overpayments are not available for blanket waiver
consideration (see Section 5 of UIPL No. 23-80 for reviewing waiver eligibility on an individual,
case-by-case basis).
Attachment III to UIPL No. 20-21, Change 1
Sample Communication to Claimants when Recovery of Overpayment is Waived
This Attachment includes a sample communication that states may use when approving the
waiver of recovery for an overpayment. This can be used both when processing individual
waiver requests in accordance with Section 4.c.i. of this UIPL and blanket waivers in accordance
with Section 4.c.ii. of this UIPL. It is written with the assumption that a state has previously sent
a determination establishing the overpayment. Option #1 under Section 4.c.iii.A. of this UIPL
provides instructions for states who wish to provide a combined notice that both establishes the
overpayment and waives recovery.
States that choose to create their own notification should consider the following:
• We recommend including reference to the applicable determination that established the
overpayment and the date such determination was mailed on the notice. If the state uses a
case number or letter IDs for the underlying eligibility and qualification determinations, the
state can also use that information to connect the overpayment determinations to this notice.
• We recommend that the state include clear language that the waiver of recovery for the
overpayment does not change the underlying ineligibility of benefits.
• As described in Section 4.c.iii.A. of this UIPL, when approving a waiver of recovery, the
state must provide instructions on how to request a reconsideration of the approved waiver if
the individual does not wish to have recovery of the overpayment waived.
• In addition to providing instructions on how an individual may ask specific questions related
to their claim, the state may consider providing for a pre-recorded message or a statement on
its website to refer individuals for general information about the waiver.
• States may also refer to the plain language guidelines provided at
https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/.
Sample Letter when Claimant Already Received Determination Establishing Overpayment
[Claimant contact information]
[Applicable CARES Act programs]
Overpayment Amount: [$XX]
Recovered Amount: [$XX]
Current Balance: [$XX]
Recovery Waived for this Amount: [$XX – should equal Overpayment Amount]
Total Due: $0
Refund Due: [$XX – should equal Recovered Amount]
Notice that You Do NOT Need to Repay Benefits Received
[State’s greeting CLAIMANT’S NAME:]
We, [Agency name], are writing to let you know that you DO NOT owe the overpayment related
to the determination(s) issued on [date of determination(s) finding ineligibility/disqualification].
During the pandemic, we sent you payments in error. But you are not responsible for this error
and do not need to return any money. You do not need to do anything. Please keep this Notice
for your records.
What Happened?
We, [Agency name], determined that you were not entitled to [a portion of/all] the
benefits you received for week(s) ending [list weeks]. You received payments before
knowing you were not entitled to those benefits. This decision created a debt (called an
overpayment) of [$XX] on your [enter CARES Act program here] claim.
But you are not required to repay this overpayment. You were without fault in creating
this overpayment and the agency has determined that recovery would be contrary to
equity and good conscience. Therefore, the Agency is waiving recovery of this
overpayment. This waiver means you are not required to pay back the overpayment
related to this determination.
What’s Next?
[Consider this paragraph when no collection activity has occurred]
There is nothing more for you to do to get this waiver. Please keep this Notice for your
records. We are working to update your overpayment status on your unemployment
insurance claim records to reflect that there is no need to repay benefits received. If
needed, you may give a copy of this Notice to others such as debt collectors, credit
bureaus or other legal entities to let them know that we are waiving recovery of your
overpayment.
[Consider this paragraph when collection activity has occurred and state will process a
refund]
There is nothing more for you to do to get this waiver. You do not need to send any
additional payments related to this overpayment caused by determination. You will
receive a [$XX] refund [enter repayment type] for the money you have already paid back
towards this overpayment. [If the state will issue refunds via direct deposit, consider
including a reminder to have the individual log into their account to confirm their
banking information. Alternatively, the state may wish to remind the individual to
confirm their mailing address].
Additional Questions?
If you do not want a waiver of the overpayment, please contact your state agency by
[deadline] by [insert contact instructions].
This Notice only applies to the overpayment issued on [date of determination(s) finding
ineligibility/disqualification] for the week(s) ending [list weeks] and does not apply to
any other overpayment.
For more details on waiving recovery of an overpayment, please check the Agency
website at [agency website], or call [agency number]. You may also look up the state’s
policy allowing this waiver at [agency website].
If you have additional questions about this notice, please contact: [Address, telephone,
website, etc.]
If you believe this notice has been issued due to fraud or you have been a victim of
identity theft, please contact [agency website, telephone].
Attachment IV to UIPL No. 20-21, Change 1
Sample Language for State Websites
This Attachment includes sample language for state websites regarding the waiver of recovery
provisions under the CARES Act UC programs. ETA recognizes that state laws and practices
may vary. States are encouraged to use this language as a starting point for their communication.
States are encouraged to reference this link in their determinations when an overpayment is
established and in their written notices when a waiver of recovery is approved.
--
Important Information for those who Receive[d] “Overpayment” Notices
PLEASE READ AS YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO PAY THEM BACK
Temporary Unemployment Benefits under the CARES Act Programs
Information on Overpayments
You may have received a notice from [STATE AGENCY] that you were paid unemployment
benefits under the CARES Act programs that you were not entitled to, this is called an
overpayment. You may also have received a notice from [STATE AGENCY] that you do not
have to pay this money back. This page explains what may be happening depending on your
specific circumstances.
Why do I have an overpayment?
The CARES Act created new temporary pandemic-related unemployment compensation
programs. We have identified some people that were paid money that they were not entitled to.
We have reviewed our records and, as needed, [are reaching out/have reached out] to these
people. If it [is/was] determined that they were not eligible for this money, we [will
establish/have established] an overpayment. In normal circumstances, someone with an
overpayment is responsible for paying the money back, but we recognize that the pandemic was
not a normal circumstance.
In what instances am I not responsible for repaying an overpayment?
If the overpayment was not your fault and we determine that it would be unfair to ask you to pay
it back (in other words, it would be against equity and good conscience to recover the money
from you), we are not going to require you to pay back the money. This is called a waiver of
recovery.
What we are doing [For states that are processing blanket waivers]
The U.S. Department of Labor has identified several scenarios where we can
automatically waive recovery of an overpayment. You can find these at [insert state-
specific link that references what scenarios the state may be applying from Section
4.c.ii.A. of UIPL No. 20-21, Change 1]. We are currently reviewing overpayments to
determine if they are eligible for recovery to be waived. [States may, if applicable to how
they are applying the blanket waiver scenarios, consider adding a sentence that says: You
do not need to submit an individual request to be considered under one of these
scenarios.] Any overpayments resulting from fraud are not eligible for waiver.
If you are eligible for a waiver, we will send you a written notice. Additionally, any
money that was collected on this overpayment will be refunded to you. Additional
information regarding any refund you may be owed will be included in this written
notice. Please note that this process may take [insert state estimated timeframe].
What you can do [For states that allow for individual waiver requests, rather than
evaluating every overpayment created (see Section 5 of UIPL No. 23-80)]
[For states processing blanket waivers, consider this intro sentence: If you do not get a
waiver but think you should,] you have two options. If you disagree with the
overpayment and believe that you were entitled to receive unemployment benefits for the
week(s) in question, you may file an appeal. If you do not wish to file an appeal but do
not think you are at fault for the overpayment, you may request consideration for a
waiver of recovery.
• File an appeal. If you do not believe you got an overpayment (meaning you believe
that you were entitled to receive unemployment benefits for the weeks in question),
you may file an appeal. Please review your determinations to see which one(s) found
you disqualified or ineligible and follow the appeals instructions listed on the
determination(s). [If applicable under state law, consider adding the sentence: If it is
past the deadline to file an appeal, you will need to show good cause for why you
missed the deadline. State may consider including some examples of what constitutes
good cause.]
You can find the determinations and the process to file an appeal on your claimant
portal by [insert language about the state’s particular online portal].
[Consider for the online webpage – add a screen shot of where to find the
determination(s) and the appeal link on the claimant’s portal. States are permitted
and encouraged to add any help buttons or other explanations consistent with this
language to guide claimants.]
If you are successful in your appeal, there is no need to request a waiver because you
will no longer be considered overpaid.
• Request a waiver so you do not have to pay back the overpaid amount. There are
two requirements to qualify for a waiver of recovery:
(1) you were not at fault for the receipt of the benefits; and
(2) it would be unfair to collect money – that is, it would be “contrary to equity and
good conscience.”
If you believe these two requirements apply to you, you may request a waiver by
[insert state-specific instructions].
If your request for a waiver is granted, we will send you a written notice. In that case,
you will not be responsible for repaying the money. Additionally, any money that
was collected on this overpayment will be refunded to you.
I received a written notice that I do not need to repay benefits received
If you received written notice that you do not need to repay benefits received, this means that we
have reviewed the overpayment and determined that you do not have to repay this money. You
do not need to return any money. You do not need to do anything for this overpayment.
Importantly, while you do not have to pay back the overpayment listed on the notice we sent
you, this waiver of recovery does not apply to any other overpayment you may have on your
account.
I received a written notice that I do not qualify for a waiver. What are my options?
If you received a written notice that you do not qualify for a waiver but think that you should
have received it, please follow the appeals instructions listed on the determination saying that
you did not qualify for a waiver. [If applicable under state law, consider adding the sentence: If
it is past the deadline to file an appeal, you will need to show good cause for why you missed the
deadline. State may consider including some examples of what constitutes good cause.]
If you do not file an appeal, we encourage you to contact us and make payment
arrangements as soon as possible. To make payment arrangements, please contact [insert
state-specific instructions]. For more information on our collections process, please visit
[insert link to state’s website explaining the collections process].
Footnotes
1. GAO-21-599R DOL Management Report, Management Report: Preliminary Information on Potential Racial and
Ethnic Disparities in the Receipt of Unemployment Insurance Benefits during the COVID-19 Pandemic, issued June
17, 2021, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-599r.pdf.
2. On average, states implemented the FPUC program within 25 days, the PUA program within 38 days, and the
PEUC program within 50 days of enactment of the CARES Act. Reference Report Number 16-21-004-03-315, U.S.
Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, COVID-19: States Struggled to Implement CARES Act
Unemployment Insurance Programs, issued May 28, 2021, https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2021/19-21-
004-03-315.pdf.
3. U.S. Census Bureau, Expanded Unemployment Insurance Benefits During Pandemic Lowered Poverty Rates
Across All Racial Groups, issued September 14, 2021, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/09/did-
unemployment-insurance-lower-official-poverty-rates-in-
2020.html?utm_campaign=20210916msacos2ccstors&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
4. Section 201(d) of the Continued Assistance Act for PUA; Section 2104(f)(2) of the CARES Act, as amended, for
FPUC and MEUC; Section 2107(e)(2) of the CARES Act, as amended, for PEUC; and Section 2105(f) of the
CARES Act, as amended, for the first week of regular UC.
5. As described in Section 4.b.ii. of UIPL No. 20-21, the state must apply the fraud penalty for PUA to all fraud
overpayments established on or after January 8, 2021. The state must apply the fraud penalty for all other CARES
Act UC programs to all fraud overpayments established on or after May 5, 2021 (the publication date of UIPL No.
20-21). This instruction does not prevent a state from choosing to apply such monetary penalties retroactively to the
beginning of the CARES Act UC programs under the authority provided by TAAEA.
6. Section 2116(a) of the CARE Act, as amended, provides that “Chapter 35 of Title 44, United States Code,
(commonly referred to as the ‘Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995’), shall not apply to the provisions of, and the
amendments made by, this subtitle.” As the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval process is waived
for these reporting instructions, these instructions are considered final and states must provide the information
requested in this form.
7. Instructions for the ETA 227 report, found in ET Handbook 401, define a waived amount as “a non-fraud
overpayment for which the state agency, in accordance with state law, officially relinquishes the obligations of the
claimant to repay. Usually, this is authorized when the overpayment was not the fault of the claimant and requiring
repayment would be against equity and good conscience or would otherwise defeat the purpose of the UI law.”
Separately, a written-off amount is defined as “an amount of overpayment not subject to further recovery because of
a state law provision authorizing cancellation of the overpayment. Usually write-offs are applied after the statute of
limitations expires, bankruptcy has been approved by a court, or the claimant has died.” For purposes of the
CARES Act UC programs, a state may only waive recovery under the narrow parameters provided in the CARES
Act, as amended – specifically, if the individual was without fault and repayment would be against equity and good
conscience. Additionally, the state must apply the write-off of an overpayment under the CARES Act UC programs
consistent with how it applies the write-off of an overpayment under the regular UC program.
8. Sections 2104(f)(3)(A), 2105(f), and 2107(e)(3)(A) of the CARES Act, as amended.
9. Covered UC debt includes both penalties and interest associated with fraudulent overpayments and overpayments
resulting from the individual’s failure to report earnings. However, only penalties are applicable to the CARES Act
programs, since states may not assess interest (see Section 4.c. of UIPL No. 20-21).
10. We note that the link to this document shows an expiration date of February 28, 1981. However, per Training and
Employment Notice No. 15-20, issued January 14, 2021, this remains an active UIPL.
What does federal law require in your situation?
Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace