Telecommuter Zapped On Benefits

A telecommuter who worked from Florida for an office in Long Island is ineligible for New York unemployment benefits, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday in a precedent-setting decision with potentially far-reaching effects.

The Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that eligibility for benefits depends on where the worker is, not where the employer is.

The court said no other state or federal court appears to have tackled the question of who should pay such benefits for interstate telecommuters — a dispute that is likely to arise elsewhere around the country with the increasing number of Americans working at home via computer.

About 28 million Americans telecommute, according to the International Telework Association and Council.

In this case, the court said, New York should not pay because Maxine Allen did her work in Florida. Florida already turned her down for benefits.

New York Labor Department officials said they were pleased with the decision.

Richard McHugh of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for low-wage workers, said the ruling will probably have influence beyond the state because this is a new issue and New York's top court is closely watched.

"It's going to have some implications for how this area of the law develops," McHugh said. "There's no question about that."

Allen worked as a technical specialist for Reuters America, a financial-information provider, from 1996 to 1999. She moved to Orlando, Fla., in 1997 when her husband changed jobs, but Reuters provided her with a phone line and computer so she could work from her new home.

Allen worked normal business hours, maintained daily contact with supervisors and sought permission to come in late or leave early, according to the court.

Reuters decided to end the arrangement in 1999 and offered her work in New York, which she declined.

After Florida refused her unemployment benefits, officials there advised her to try in New York.

New York's labor commissioner declared her ineligible, a decision overruled by an administrative law judge but reinstated by an appeals board and an appeals court. Wednesday's ruling affirmed the lower court ruling.

Allen, who represented herself in the case, said she was disappointed with the ruling but has no plans to pursue the case.