Critics Say Firm
Weakens Safety Net as It Fights Jobless Claims
By JASON DePARLE
Published: April 3, 2010 - New York Times
WASHINGTON — With a client list that reads like a roster of Fortune 500
firms, a little-known company with an odd name, the Talx Corporation, has come
to dominate a thriving industry: helping employers process — and fight —
unemployment claims.
Talx, which emerged from obscurity over the last eight years, says it handles
more than 30 percent of the nationfs requests for jobless benefits. Pledging to
save employers money in part by contesting claims, Talx helps them decide which
applications to resist and how to mount effective appeals.
The work has made Talx a boom business in a bust economy, but critics say the
company has undermined a crucial safety net. Officials in a number of states
have called Talx a chronic source of error and delay. Advocates for the
unemployed say the company seeks to keep jobless workers from collecting
benefits.
gTalx often files appeals regardless of merits,h said Jonathan P. Baird, a
lawyer at New Hampshire Legal Assistance. gItfs sort of a war of attrition. If
you appeal a certain percentage of cases, there are going to be those workers
who give up.h
When fewer former workers get aid, a company pays lower unemployment taxes.
Wisconsin and Iowa passed laws to curtail procedural abuses that officials
said were common in cases handled by Talx. Connecticut fined Talx
(pronounced talks) and demanded an end to baseless appeals.
New York, without naming Talx, instructed the Labor Department staff to side
with workers in cases that simply pit their word against those of agents for
employers.
Talx officials say they have been unfairly blamed for situations caused by
tight deadlines, confusing state rules or uncooperative employers. Talx cannot
submit information about idled workers, they say, until clients give it to them.
They say Talx improves the systemfs efficiency by mastering the complexities of
50 state programs, allowing employers to focus on their businesses.
gWe can speed the whole process, rather than bog it down,h said Michael E.
Smith, a senior Talx executive. gThe whole idea is to protect those employees
who have lost their job through no fault of their own and make sure they get
unemployment insurance.h
Mr. Smith said employers, not Talx, controlled decisions about which cases to
contest. gWe just do what the client asks us to do and leave it to the state to
decide,h he said.
Advocates for the unemployed cite cases like that of Gerald Grenier, 47, who
spent four years as a night janitor at a New Hampshire Wal-Mart and was fired
for pocketing several dollars in coins from a vending machine. Mr. Grenier, who
is mentally disabled, told Wal-Mart he forgot to turn in the change. Talx,
representing Wal-Mart, accused him of misconduct and fought his unemployment
claim.
After Mr. Grenier waited three months for a hearing, Wal-Mart did not appear.
A Talx agent joined by phone, then seemingly hung up as Mr. Grenier testified.
The hearing officer redialed and left an unanswered message on the agentfs voice
mail. The officer called Mr. Grenier gcompletely credibleh and granted him
benefits.
Talx appealed, claiming that the officer had denied the agentfs request to
let Wal-Mart testify by phone. (A recording of the hearing contains no such
request.) Mr. Grenier won the appeal, but by then he had lost his apartment and
moved in with his sister.
gThat was a nightmare,h he said.
In the case of Dina Griess, Talx and its client, the subprime lender Countrywide
Financial, were involved in what a judge deemed an outright fraud. Ms.
Griess worked for Countrywide outside Boston and quit as it collapsed in 2008,
saying she was distressed by internal investigations of lending practices.
People can receive unemployment benefits if they quit for ggood cause,h like
unsafe working conditions, but Talx argued that Ms. Griessfs reason did not meet
the legal standard.
She won benefits at a hearing that Talx and Countrywide skipped, but Talx
successfully appealed, saying the Countrywide witness had missed the hearing
because of a family death. Later asked under oath if that was true, the witness
said, gNo, itfs not.h
A Massachusetts judge reviewing the case, Robert A. Cornetta of Salem
District Court, denounced the deceit and gave Ms. Griess benefits. gThe court
will not be party to a fraud,h he said.
Despite the large role that Talx and other agents play in a program that
spent $120 billion last year, the federal Department of Labor has done little to
measure their impact.
Talx, which is based in St. Louis, declined to make clients available for
interviews, citing pledges of confidentiality, and none of those contacted chose
to comment. Other major employers that have used Talx include Aetna, AT&T,
Best Buy, FedEx, Home Depot, Marriott, McDonaldfs and the United States Postal
Service. (The New York Times uses Talx for a different service, to answer
inquiries from lenders about its employeesf earnings.)
Talx entered the field brashly, buying the industryfs two largest companies
on a single day in 2002. In the next few years, it bought five more. Until then,
Talx had never handled an unemployment claim, and skeptics wondered how well it
could blend seven companies in an unfamiliar industry.
The Federal Trade Commission argued in a 2008 antitrust complaint that the
acquisitions, which cost $230 million, had allowed Talx to graise prices
unilaterallyh and gdecrease the quality of services.h Talx modified some
contracts to settle the case, but admitted no legal violations.
Financially, the gamble paid off: Talx was acquired three years ago by
Equifax, the credit-rating giant, for $1.4 billion. But work once done locally
became centralized — at a loss, critics say, of responsiveness and expertise.
Wisconsin officials were among the first to complain, passing a law in 2005
to prevent what they called a common Talx practice: failing to respond to
requests for information, only to appeal when workers got benefits. That clogged
the appeals docket and drained the benefits fund, since money sent to ineligible
workers was hard to get back.
While the law brought about quicker participation, said Hal Bergan, the
statefs unemployment insurance administrator, the companyfs overall speed and
accuracy gstill leaves something to be desired.h
Indeed, years of e-mail messages, obtained through an open records law, show
a continually exasperated Wisconsin staff. While a few cited improved
performance, others complained that Talx greturned half-empty questionnaires,h
sent back gminimal or ejunkf info,h reported in error that applicants were dead,
filed gfrivolous protestsh and caused gthe holdup of many claims.h
gSame problems as always,h wrote Amy Banicki, a senior manager, in a 2008
e-mail message. gTalx is Talx.h
Iowa passed a similar law in 2008 to curtail unnecessary appeals. Of the 10
employers who most often appealed after failing to respond to data requests,
officials said nine were represented by Talx, including Cargill, Target, Tyson
Foods, Wal-Mart and Wells Fargo.
Connecticut cited gfrivolous motionsh and gunnecessary delaysh in filing a
complaint against Talx under a law that regulates employer agents. Without
admitting fault, Talx paid a $12,000 fine and agreed to tell clients in writing
that it would not file baseless appeals.
While there is no comprehensive research, the Labor Department did an
internal study of 2,000 cases in 2007 and found Talx significantly slower and
less complete in answering auditorsf questions than employers who handled their
own claims. Officials said they did not release the study, which drew on seven
states, because they could not ensure it was representative. The New York Times
obtained it under the Freedom of Information Act.
Talx supporters say the programfs tight deadlines often give Talx just a few
days to answer requests. They emphasize that Talx is working with states to
develop a common computer format that will help provide the data more rapidly.
They also say scrutiny of claims by companies like Talx helps deter fraud.
gIncreased vigilance is an appropriate thing,h said Douglas J. Holmes,
president of UWC, a Washington group that represents employers on unemployment
issues. gIntegrity is important.h
But others say that Talx, by promising to save clients money, has an
incentive to fight even legitimate claims. In marketing materials, it warns
employers that ga single claim can result in a higher tax rateh and makes the
promise that gwe deliver increased winning percentages.h
Joseph Walsh, deputy director of Iowafs employment security agency, said, gWe
are more likely to see a claim of misconduct that is completely unsupported by
the factual recordh when agents are involved.
Officials in the New York State Department of Labor were so concerned last
year about the credibility of agents that they warned staff members against
taking their word over that of jobless workers. Absent other evidence, the
officials wrote, ggive greater weight to the claimantfs statement.h
That guidance was relevant in the case of Genssy Frias, a Bronx woman who
took a maternity leave from a sales job at Lord & Taylor. Ms. Frias said
that she tried to return but that her supervisor told her she had been laid off.
A Talx agent said Ms. Frias quit because she lacked child care.
gWe did not hear from her again,h the agent wrote.
New York canceled Ms. Friasfs benefits and accused her of lying.
In an interview, Ms. Frias said the agentfs response to the state was not
only inaccurate but also deceitful, because she did not disclose that she worked
for Talx and implied first-hand knowledge by using the pronoun gwe.h Had she
identified herself as an agent, officials would have given her statement less
weight.
A Talx spokeswoman said the agent made a clerical error in writing gweh and
called it an isolated incident. Lord & Taylor did not respond to requests
for comment.
Ms. Frias appealed and presented a baby sitterfs note, which vouched that she
had arranged for child care. Neither Talx nor Lord & Taylor appeared at the
hearing, and Ms. Frias won.
gI was thinking, how can they lie like that when they know I didnft quit?h
Ms. Frias said.