Peter is legitimately terminated from AM, Inc. located inIllinois.  The company's reason for termination was areduction-in-force, which resulted in the elimination of Peter'sposition.  He is eligible for unemployment compensationbenefits.  The Department of Employment Security hasnotified Peter that his eligibility provides for up to twenty-sixweeks of unemployment compensation benefits.

Peter had a planned four-week vacation that had been scheduledfor July.  He was terminated by AM, Inc. in May, and heapplied for unemployment compensation benefits shortlythereafter.  He had already purchased airline tickets,paid for hotels, and booked various non-refundable reservations foroutings during the scheduled vacation.  All of the itemswere purchased in advance and reservations booked would result inno refunds.  Since he already saved for the plannedvacation, he decided to follow through with it, even though heremained unemployed.

One of Peter's former supervisors, who remained activelyemployed with AM, Inc., is friends with Peter on Facebook. Peterposted, on Facebook, various photos of his activities during thefour-week vacation.  In a conversation with the company'shuman resource manager, the supervisor commented upon Peter'svacation.  The human resource manager, in turn, contactedthe Department of Employment Security objecting to Peter'seligibility for unemployment compensation benefits during thatfour-week period of time.

The Department of Employment Security has scheduled a hearingwhether to deny Peter benefit coverage for the period in which hewas on vacation.  Can AM, Inc. protest his continuedeligibility benefits, even though it did notoriginally?  Is Peter eligible for benefits during thefour-week period?  Why, why not?  Discussfully