Background
Jennifer McGinley worked part-time for LiveAbility from March 2023 until May 2025, when the employer told her she no longer had a job. She applied for unemployment compensation. McGinley had received Social Security Disability Insurance benefits based on injuries from a car accident and told WorkForce West Virginia that she could not work full-time.
A claims deputy denied benefits after McGinley did not provide a physician statement that she could return to full-time work. Following a telephonic hearing, an administrative law judge affirmed, finding that McGinley had not proved she was able and available for full-time work. The WorkForce West Virginia Board of Review adopted the ALJ’s findings and affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. West Virginia Code § 21A-6-1(3) makes unemployment benefits available only to claimants able and available for full-time work for which they are qualified. It was undisputed that McGinley could not work full-time and that she offered no evidence establishing availability for such work.
The court rejected McGinley’s Title II ADA claims. The statute does not disqualify claimants because of disability or SSDI receipt; it permits SSDI recipients to establish eligibility based on their actual ability to work. McGinley also offered no evidence that the full-time-work requirement disproportionately affects people with disabilities. The court declined to address her inadequately developed constitutional challenge and noted that she had abandoned her Rehabilitation Act and West Virginia Human Rights Act claims.
Key Takeaways
- West Virginia unemployment claimants must prove they are able and available for full-time work.
- Receiving SSDI does not itself bar unemployment benefits under West Virginia law.
- A Title II ADA disparate-impact claim requires evidence of a disproportionate effect, not conclusory assertions.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a neutral eligibility requirement from an exclusion tied directly to disability or SSDI status. A claimant receiving SSDI may still pursue unemployment benefits, but must establish that they satisfy the statute’s full-time-work requirement.
For administrative appeals, the ruling also underscores that undeveloped constitutional arguments may be treated as waived and that Board fact findings receive substantial deference unless clearly wrong.