PA UC status shows 'rule violation' after termination - employer said they 'wouldn't be against' me collecting

Yes, 'rule violation' typically means your employer is contesting your claim based on some form of misconduct. When this happens, PA UC will schedule a determination interview with both you and your employer to get both sides of the story. You should receive a notice in the mail with the interview date (could be by phone). The employer absolutely has to provide specific details about what rule they claim you violated. They can't just say 'rule violation' without evidence. Since they told you they were 'going in a different direction' and even initially said they wouldn't oppose unemployment, you have a strong case. Make sure to continue filing your weekly claims while this is being resolved! Many people forget this step and lose benefits. Also, document EVERYTHING - especially that conversation where they said they wouldn't oppose your claim. If possible, note the date, time, and exactly who said it.

same thing happend to me last year. company said i was let go cuz of 'performance issues' but never gave me any warnings. when i filed for UC they sudenly claimed i was on my phone too much & broke company policy. the UC office will mail u papers with what the employer is saying. u get to respond to it. good luck bc pa unemployment is a MESS

What you're experiencing is very common. The 'rule violation' status appears when your employer contests your claim. Here's what happens next: 1. You'll receive a Notice of Determination Interview in the mail with a scheduled date/time 2. During this interview, a UC examiner will ask both you and your employer questions about the separation 3. Your employer MUST provide specific details about what rule they claim you violated and provide evidence 4. Since they stated they were 'going in a different direction' and initially weren't opposed to your UC claim, they'll have difficulty proving willful misconduct The burden of proof IS on the employer in willful misconduct cases. Document the conversation where they said they 'wouldn't be against' your unemployment claim - note the date, time, who you spoke with. Continue filing your weekly claims during this process! Most determinations are made within 2-3 weeks after the interview, though it can sometimes take longer.

I've been through this EXACT situation! These companies will say ANYTHING to avoid paying unemployment. They told you "going in a different direction" then try to claim misconduct after the fact??? Classic corporate BS! Here's the TRUTH they don't want you to know: in PA, if they can't prove willful misconduct, YOU GET YOUR BENEFITS! And "going in a different direction" is basically admitting it's not for cause. The system is DESIGNED to intimidate you into giving up. DON'T GIVE UP! Keep filing weekly, show up to the interview, and simply tell the truth. They have to PROVE you violated a known policy on purpose - not just claim it after the fact. The whole "rule violation" thing is just their initial response. The UC office decides, not your ex-employer!

If you need to get in touch with a PA UC representative (which I highly recommend in rule violation cases), try Claimyr. I was dealing with a similar situation where my employer was making false claims, and I couldn't get through on the UC phone lines for weeks. Claimyr got me connected to a UC rep in about 20 minutes. They have a video demo at https://youtu.be/CEPETxZdo9E?si=WL1ZzVZWG3KiHrg2 that shows how it works. The rep I spoke with explained exactly what the employer was claiming and helped me understand what documentation I needed to prepare for my interview. Made a huge difference in my case outcome.

wait so ur employer said u were fired for 'going in a different direction' but now claims rule violation?? thats sketchy af. sounds like they trying to avoid paying unemployment after telling u something different. make sure u tell this to the uc examiner!!

One more important point: if your determination interview doesn't go your way, you have the right to appeal. You'll have 15 days from the date on the determination notice to file the appeal. The success rate for claimants in appeal hearings is actually quite good when employers can't provide documentation of the alleged misconduct. Also, request a copy of your personnel file from HR immediately. In Pennsylvania, you have a legal right to review your personnel file within 30 days of termination. Send a certified letter requesting it. This can be crucial evidence if they've never documented any issues with your performance or behavior prior to termination.

also dont forget they have to show that 1) there was an actual rule 2) you knew about the rule and 3) you broke it on purpose. if they never told you about whatever rule they now say you broke, thats in your favor!

Thank you all for the helpful responses! I'm feeling much better about the situation now. I'll definitely: 1. Keep filing my weekly claims while this gets resolved 2. Request my personnel file via certified mail 3. Document everything about that conversation where they said they "wouldn't be against" my unemployment 4. Prepare for the determination interview by gathering any evidence I have I'll update here after I get the notice about what specific rule violation they're claiming. It's frustrating that they can just make claims without telling me what they are, but at least I have a better understanding of the process now.

This whole situation sounds really suspicious to me. Your employer clearly changed their story after you filed - first saying "going in a different direction" and that they "wouldn't be against" you collecting, then suddenly claiming rule violation? That's a major red flag. I went through something similar last year where my employer tried to claim misconduct after initially saying it was due to "restructuring." The key thing that helped me was having documentation of their inconsistent statements. Since you emailed HR to confirm the conversation, even though they backtracked, that email trail could be really valuable evidence. When you get to your determination interview, make sure to emphasize how their story keeps changing. The UC examiner will definitely take note of that inconsistency. Also, the fact that they shut down your company email so quickly after termination is another red flag - it looks like they're trying to prevent you from accessing evidence. Stay strong and don't let them intimidate you into giving up!

I'm dealing with a similar situation right now! My employer also changed their story after I filed - first said it was "budget cuts" then suddenly claimed I violated attendance policy (which I never did). The good news is that PA UC takes these inconsistencies very seriously. When employers can't keep their story straight, it usually works in your favor. The fact that they initially told you they "wouldn't be against" your claim and then backtracked is actually really strong evidence for you. One thing I learned from my case worker is that employers often contest claims hoping people will just give up without fighting it. Don't let them win by intimidation! The determination interview is your chance to present your side, and with all the contradictory statements they've made, you're in a good position. Also, definitely try to get any witnesses who might have heard that conversation where they said they wouldn't oppose your claim. Even if it's just a coworker who was nearby, their testimony could help support your case. Keep us updated on how it goes - rooting for you!

I'm going through something very similar right now! My employer also gave me one reason for termination initially, then completely changed their story when I filed for UC. It's so frustrating when they think they can just make stuff up after the fact. From what I've learned through my own research and talking to others who've been through this, the key is that they have to prove THREE things: 1) there was an actual company policy/rule, 2) you knew about that specific rule, and 3) you intentionally violated it. If they can't prove all three with documentation, their claim falls apart. The fact that your boss said they "wouldn't be against" your claim is HUGE. That's basically an admission that your termination wasn't for misconduct. Make sure you write down exactly when that conversation happened, who was present, and exactly what was said word-for-word. Also, don't stress too much about the "rule violation" status - that's just their initial contest. The real decision gets made during the determination interview. Keep filing your weekly claims and document everything. You've got this!

I'm a newer member here but wanted to share what I learned when I went through something similar. The "rule violation" status is really just the system's way of saying your employer contested your claim - it doesn't mean you've actually violated anything or that their contest has merit. What really stands out to me about your situation is how your employer's story keeps changing. That's actually a huge advantage for you! Going from "different direction" to suddenly claiming rule violations after you filed looks really bad for them. The UC examiner will definitely notice that inconsistency. One thing I wish someone had told me earlier in my process: start keeping a detailed timeline of everything that happened. Write down the exact date of termination, when you had that conversation about them not opposing your claim, when you filed for UC, when the status changed to "rule violation," etc. Having those dates organized really helped during my determination interview. Also, that email where HR said your manager "misspoke" is actually evidence in your favor - it confirms the conversation happened and shows they're trying to cover their tracks. Don't let them intimidate you with these scare tactics. You've got a strong case!

I just wanted to chime in as someone who's been following unemployment issues in PA - your situation is unfortunately very common but you're handling it exactly right! The fact that your employer initially said "going in a different direction" and told you they "wouldn't be against" your unemployment claim is actually really strong evidence that this wasn't a misconduct-based termination. What strikes me most about your case is the timing - they only claimed "rule violation" AFTER you filed for benefits. That's a classic sign of an employer trying to avoid paying their unemployment insurance costs rather than having legitimate misconduct concerns. If there was truly willful misconduct, they would have mentioned it during termination. A few additional tips based on what I've seen work for others: - When you get your determination interview notice, read it carefully for any details about what specific rule they're claiming you violated - If they claim you violated a policy, ask yourself: did you receive employee handbook training? Do you still have access to written policies? - The burden is on THEM to prove you intentionally violated a known rule Keep fighting this - employers count on people giving up when they see "rule violation" but the system is designed to protect workers from exactly this type of post-termination story changing!

I'm new to this community but had to jump in because I went through almost the exact same thing last year! My employer told me I was being "laid off due to company restructuring" but then contested my UC claim saying I had "performance issues" - which was news to me since I'd never received any warnings or write-ups. The whole "rule violation" status is definitely scary when you first see it, but like others have said, it's just their initial contest. What really helped my case was that I had documentation showing their story changed after I filed. In your situation, that conversation where they said they "wouldn't be against" your claim is GOLD - it's basically them admitting on record that they didn't consider your termination misconduct-related. One thing I learned is that PA UC examiners are pretty good at spotting when employers are making stuff up after the fact to avoid paying benefits. The inconsistency in their story (going from "different direction" to suddenly claiming rule violations) will definitely work in your favor. My advice: document that original conversation in as much detail as possible - exact date, time, who said what. And definitely keep filing those weekly claims! I almost made the mistake of stopping when I saw the contest, but thankfully someone here told me to keep going. Good luck - you've got a strong case!

I'm new to this community but your situation really resonates with me because I'm going through something almost identical right now! My employer also completely changed their tune after I filed - first told me it was "budget constraints" but then suddenly claimed I violated company policy when I applied for UC. What gives me hope about your case is how well-documented their story changes are. The fact that your boss explicitly told you they "wouldn't be against" your unemployment claim and then HR had to admit he "misspoke" is actually incredible evidence for you. That's basically them admitting in writing that the original conversation happened and that they're now trying to backtrack. I've been researching PA unemployment law obsessively since my own issues started, and from everything I've read, these post-filing contests where the employer suddenly discovers "misconduct" that they never mentioned during termination are viewed very skeptically by UC examiners. The timing alone makes it look like they're just trying to avoid paying into the unemployment system. Keep documenting everything and definitely follow the advice others gave about requesting your personnel file. If they truly had grounds for a misconduct termination, there should be documentation of progressive discipline leading up to it. The fact that they gave you a vague "going in a different direction" explanation suggests there's no such documentation. You've got this - don't let them intimidate you into giving up! The system is designed to catch exactly these kinds of bad faith contests from employers.

I'm new here but wanted to share what I learned from a similar situation. That "rule violation" status is basically just their way of contesting your claim - it doesn't mean you actually did anything wrong. The real decision happens during the determination interview. What really stands out to me is how your employer's story keeps changing. First "going in a different direction," then telling you they "wouldn't be against" your unemployment, then HR saying the manager "misspoke," and now suddenly claiming rule violations? That pattern of inconsistency is actually really strong evidence in your favor. I'd suggest writing down a detailed timeline of everything - exact dates, who said what, when each conversation happened. The UC examiner will definitely notice how their story evolved after you filed for benefits, which makes their contest look pretty suspicious. Also, definitely keep filing those weekly claims while this gets sorted out! I made the mistake of stopping when I first saw a contest on my claim and it caused delays later. The determination interview is where you'll get to present your side and with all their contradictory statements, you're in a good position. Don't let them intimidate you into giving up - this kind of post-filing story changing is exactly what the UC system is designed to protect workers against!

I'm new to this community but your situation is infuriating and unfortunately very common. Employers pull this bait-and-switch tactic all the time - they give you some vague reason for termination, then suddenly "discover" misconduct only after you file for benefits. It's a deliberate strategy to try to get out of paying unemployment costs. The fact that your boss explicitly told you they "wouldn't be against" your claim is absolutely huge evidence in your favor. That's basically an admission that they didn't consider your termination misconduct-related at the time it happened. When combined with their original vague "going in a different direction" explanation, it paints a clear picture that they're making stuff up after the fact. Here's what I learned from my own experience with a similar situation: document absolutely everything about that conversation where they said they wouldn't oppose your claim. Write down the exact date, time, location, who was present, and the exact words used. That conversation is going to be your strongest piece of evidence during the determination interview. Also, the fact that they shut down your company email so quickly is actually another red flag that works in your favor - it looks like they're trying to prevent you from accessing evidence that might contradict their new story. Don't let their intimidation tactics work. The "rule violation" status is just their initial contest - the real decision gets made by the UC examiner who will see right through their inconsistent story. Keep fighting this!

I'm new to this community but had to jump in because your situation is almost identical to what I went through last year! The whole "rule violation" thing is definitely intimidating when you first see it, but it's really just their way of contesting your claim - not an actual determination that you did anything wrong. What really stands out to me is how your employer's story keeps evolving. Going from "different direction" to "wouldn't be against your unemployment" to suddenly discovering "rule violations" only after you filed? That's textbook bad faith behavior that UC examiners see right through. I learned the hard way that you absolutely MUST keep filing your weekly claims during this process - I almost made the mistake of stopping when I saw the contest. Also, that conversation where your boss said they "wouldn't be against" your claim is probably your strongest piece of evidence. Write down every single detail you can remember about it. One thing that really helped my case was emphasizing during the determination interview how my employer's story kept changing after I filed. The examiner took note of the inconsistency and ruled in my favor. Your situation sounds even stronger since you have that HR email essentially admitting your manager "misspoke" - that's basically confirmation that the original conversation happened and they're trying to backtrack. Don't let them intimidate you into giving up! The system is designed to protect workers from exactly this kind of post-termination story manipulation.

I'm new to this community but your situation is really striking a chord with me because I just went through something very similar! The "rule violation" status is definitely scary at first, but from what I've learned, it's really just the system's way of flagging that your employer contested your claim - not an actual finding against you. What's most telling about your case is the clear timeline of your employer changing their story. They went from "going in a different direction" during termination → telling you they "wouldn't be against" your unemployment claim → HR saying the manager "misspoke" → suddenly claiming rule violations only AFTER you filed. That pattern screams bad faith contest to me. That initial conversation where your boss said they "wouldn't be against" your claim is incredibly valuable evidence. It's essentially an admission that they didn't consider your termination misconduct-related when it actually happened. Combined with shutting down your email access so quickly (looks like they're trying to prevent evidence gathering), their behavior is going to look really suspicious to the UC examiner. My advice: document every detail of that conversation with exact dates/times, keep filing your weekly claims no matter what, and don't let their intimidation tactics work. The determination interview is where you'll get to present all this evidence of their contradictory statements. You've got a really strong case here - employers who legitimately terminate for misconduct don't usually tell people they "wouldn't be against" their unemployment benefits! Stay strong and keep fighting this. The system is designed to catch exactly these kinds of post-filing story changes from employers trying to avoid their unemployment costs.