Gov. Mike Parson was misguided in his efforts to incentivize Missourians to return to work by refusing to accept federal unemployment benefits that would have partly provided for the jobless, according to an attorney who sued the state.
“My argument is these people have to look for work or they don't get the benefits,” said attorney Loretta Haggard. “If they don't show that they're doing a legitimate, genuine search for work, their benefits will be cut off.”
Haggard sued the state on behalf of plaintiffs who are seeking reinstatement of federal unemployment benefits with back pay, which were cut in June.
"The state's decision to withdraw prematurely is a microcosm of a larger issue," she said. "There was no need for the state government to withdraw early. It cost Missourians an estimated $770 million in benefits and I can tell you, from the five plaintiffs in this case, they weren't sitting at home ignoring offers to work, which was the governor's rationale for terminating early."
But Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem sided with Gov. Parson last week when he denied the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction under the guise of promoting economic recovery.
As previously reported, some 90,500 workers had been securing the $300 federal supplement in addition to state unemployment benefits before Gov. Parson ended the allocation.
“The data shows that the governor's decision has not resulted in a large increase in the number of people returning to work because a lot of people can't find work, especially people living in rural areas,” Haggard told the St. Louis Record. “So, there's a larger issue in the state of Missouri begrudging crumbs of bread that were available under the federal pandemic unemployment program for people who desperately needed it.”
It was widely reported that Gov. Parson was among the Republican governors nationwide who turned a blind eye to COVID benefits in order to motivate workers to return to employment.
“There's a lot of money available under the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan and there were a lot of local governments who didn't even know what to do with it,” Haggard said. “So, from a political standpoint, my plaintiffs broadly support the CARES Act and American Rescue Plan money being used to help people in need. There was absolutely no reason for the state of Missouri to walk away from this money. It cost them nothing. The federal government paid the cost of these federal benefits and paid the cost of administering them.”
Haggard added that she is not planning on appealing Beetem’s decision.
“A denial of a preliminary injunction doesn't set a precedent,” she said. “What will set a precedent is the decision that he makes at trial but the consequence of not getting a preliminary injunction may limit the remedies that are available to the plaintiffs if we win because the federal government is stopping funding for these benefits on September 6th.”