Legal Question in Business Law in California

I think the controlling legal principle is the doctrine of "estoppel" and where estoppel can be asserted and where it cannot.

Estoppel works sort of like this, in very simple terms. If X relies on Y's assertion that something is so, and it's a subject where Y should be knowledgable, but it turns out to X's detriment that Y is wrong, Y sometimes cannot change his tune in court. For example, if Y tells X, "That's your land, go ahead and build your garage on it!" then later sues X for trespass because it really was Y's land all along and Y knew or should have known it, the court may rule that Y is estopped to change his story and assert ownership.

Unfortunately, there are cases holding that estoppel cannot be used against public employees for making goof-ups in advising the public. One that I remember involved a citizen who called the IRS and got tax advice. The IRS agent's advice was wrong, the citizen underpaid his tax, and the IRS moved in to collect taxes, interest and penalties. The citizen got the agent to testify as to the advice he was given, and argued to the judge that the IRS should be estopped from changing its tune and should be bound by the bad advice. The court ruled in favor of the IRS, on the theory that government agencies must enforce the law and rules as written, and that incorrect advice of a low-ranking employee does not bind the agency or modify the law.

I don't see a contract issue here. There was no contract between you and the clerk who advised you, nor between the unemployment board and you. First, the clerk clearly lacks the power to make a contract on behalf of the agency. Second, a contract requires an offer and an acceptance. Even if the clerk made an offer, you failed timely to accept it. Sorry. Maybe there is an appeal process. It seems to me that justice is on your side.