Skidgel v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.

**What happened:** This case involved workers who provided in-home supportive services (IHSS) to close family members through California's Direct Payment Mode program. These workers applied for unemployment insurance benefits but were denied. They challenged this decision, arguing they should be eligible for unemployment coverage like other workers. **What the court decided:** The California Court of Appeal sided with the state's Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. The court ruled that IHSS providers who care for close family members under the Direct Payment Mode are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. The key reason was that in this program, the care recipient (the family member receiving services) is considered the sole employer, not the state or a care agency. **Why this matters for workers:** This ruling affects thousands of family caregivers in California's IHSS program. These workers cannot collect unemployment benefits if they lose their caregiving position, even though they pay into the unemployment system through payroll taxes. Family members who provide paid care through IHSS should understand they have different employment protections than traditional employees. This decision highlights the complex employment status of family caregivers in government-funded programs.