Employee denied unemployment insurance benefits after resigning despite assurances of continued employment notwithstanding a layoff

Employee denied unemployment insurance benefits after resigning despite assurances of continued employment notwithstanding a layoff
Matter of Ruggiero v Commissioner of Labor, 2009 NY Slip Op 05236, decided on June 25, 2009, Appellate Division, Third Department

Elaine Ruggiero learned that resigning from one's position in anticipation of being laid off does not constitute good cause for leaving one's employment when she attempted to overturn the Commissioner of Labor’s determination denying her application for unemployment insurance.

According to the decision, Ruggiero submitted her resignation after she was told that the program that she had been teaching would not be offered during the next academic year. Believing that she would not be able to exercise bumping rights over the positions of less senior employees, she did not ask her employer if other positions were available. The Appellate Division said that “by failing to do so, she neglected to take reasonable measures to protect her employment.”

Based on testimony from her former employer’s representative, Ruggiero was required to pay “a recoverable overpayment” and, in addition, a penalty was imposed based upon the finding that she made a willful misrepresentation to receive benefits.*

The employer’s representative testified that Ruggiero had sufficient seniority to exercise bumping rights over other employees in positions in the same tenure area and that “the employer planned to transfer her to one of these positions and advised her that she would be teaching something in the fall, but was not sure of the subject area.” Despite this assurance, Ruggiero submitted her resignation.

The Appellate Division held that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ruggiero voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Another aspect of unemployment insurance claims: a claim for benefits filed by an educator who is unemployed between school semesters. However, Labor Law subdivisions 10 (professional educators) and 11 (non-professional educators) of §590.11 provide that such persons who are given a reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following school semester are ineligible for benefits if they are unemployed between successive semesters.

For example, in Huff v Sweeney, Appellate Division, 222 A.D.2d 919, the Appellate Division ruled that teacher's aides who are provided with a reasonable assurance of reemployment following a summer recess are ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits during the recess period.

Applying the provisions of Section 590.11 of the Labor Law, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board had ruled that Huff was ineligible for such benefits for the summer because the Buffalo City School District had given him a reasonable assurance that he would be rehired under the same terms and conditions of employment in the next academic year.

The same rule applies to substitute teachers as the court held in In re Papapietro, 34 A.D.3d 956. Here the Appellate Division sustained a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board rejecting a claim for benefits filed by John Papapietro under the authority of Labor Law Section 590.10. The Board determined that Papapietro, a per diem substitute teacher employed by the Rochester City School District, was sent a letter “assuring him of continued employment as a per diem substitute teacher [during the following academic year] with expected earnings of not less than 90% of his earnings for the [prior] school year.”

* Ruggiero’s application for benefits stated that she lost her employment due to a lack of work which, in view of her employer’s assurance of her of continued employment, the court characterized as a “willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_05236.htm