For the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, leaving employment without a firm job offer such as a start date for that new employment, does not constitute leaving for good cause

In this appeal of a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, [Board], the Appellate Division sustained the Board's decision disqualifying an applicant [Claimant] for unemployment insurance benefits "because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause".

Claimant had advised her then employer [Employer] that she had been accepted into nursing school and the then Employer told Claimant that although she could not continue in her present full-time position while attending school, a per diem position could be created for her. 

Claimant began classes and was advised by the Employer that it "would need a resignation letter" stating her last day of work. Claimant submitted a letter on September 12, resigning effective September 27, following her use of certain accrued leave. 

Claimant had indicated that she had resigned with the understanding that, "in accordance with the [then Employer's] general policy, the per diem position had to be approved and posted prior to her being able to apply for it, and no set start date or salary for the position had been determined".

Some two weeks after her resignation was effective the per diem position had not yet been posted and Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant received one payment of benefits before the Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause and charged her with a recoverable overpayment. 

At the hearing which followed, the Employer explained that organization-wide delays with getting new positions posted and maintained that Employer was committed to formally hiring Claimant for the per diem role once the administrative process was complete and the position could be posted. 

Ultimately Claimant was formally hired for the per diem position but while the instant appeal to the Appellate Division and the Board application were pending, the Board reopened the matter on its own motion and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision on the merits.

With respect to Claimants appeal to the Appellate Division, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining "Whether a claimant has good cause to leave employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence". 

Further, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Martinez [Commissioner of Labor], 222 AD3d 1099, explained "It is well established that resigning from a position in order to pursue academic studies, while commendable, constitutes a personal and non-compelling reason for separating from one's employment, disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits".  The Appellate Division's decision then observed that "leaving employment without a firm job offer, most significantly here a start date for that new employment, does not constitute good cause."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

A member of the New York State Employees' Retirement System must be a bona fide retiree in order to be eligible to receive retirement benefits from the system

The Petitioner in this action appealed the denial of his application for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 service retirement benefits by the New York State and Local Retirement System [ERS].

Petitioner worked as a correction officer for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision for over 34 years, resigning from that position in April 2021. Petitioner, however, had commenced working for the Granville Central School District as a school bus monitor in March 2021. 

On May 13, 2021, Petitioner filed an application with ERS seeking service retirement benefits with the school district pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15, indicating an effective retirement date of May 15, 2021. Petitioner also advised the school district that he was retiring on May 15 "with the intent of continuing [his] employment" with the school district. 

Ultimately Petitioner resigned from his position as a bus monitor on October 15, 2021, for health reasons, but continued to work for the school district as a consultant.

In May 2019, the New York State's Retirement System's Pension Integrity Bureau [Bureau] commenced investigating retirement applications submitted by individuals who had predominantly worked as correction officers but were seeking benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15. In a letter dated February 2, 2022, the Bureau informed Petitioner that, after reviewing his application, he was "not eligible to retire under the article 15 plan as of the effective date of [his] retirement (i.e., May 15, 2021) because [he] did not have a bona fide termination from employment." 

Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer denied Petitioner's application, finding, among other things, that Petitioner had not demonstrated that he had a bona fide termination of his employment. The Comptroller affirmed the Hearing Officer's findings and decision. Petitioner then initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's decision.

The Appellate Division, noting that:

1. "The Comptroller has exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits and the determination must be upheld if the interpretation of the controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence"; and 

 2. The Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 does not define the term "retirement,"; explained it employed the commonly understood meaning of the term, which is "to withdraw from one's position or occupation" or to "conclude one's working or professional career", quoting Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of "retirement".

Sustaining the Comptroller's interpretation that an applicant for Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 benefits "must demonstrate that he or she actually retired from public service employment in the first instance" and concluding "that it is entirely rational and reasonable for [the Comptroller] to require that such retirement be genuine, i.e., the applicant must demonstrate that there has been a legitimate cessation or termination of employment.

Opining that "... the Comptroller's reasonable interpretation that applicants for Retirement and Social Security Law article 15 benefits demonstrate a legitimate cessation or termination of employment prior to re-employment does not constitute fraud, misrepresentation, deception or similar misconduct in order to implicate the exception allowing the doctrine of estoppel to be invoked against a state agency, held that "substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's determination that [Petitioner] was ineligible for benefits because he did not actually retire from service on May 15, 2021".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Courts Are Facing an Artificial Intelligence Tidal Wave

Judges have been facing making decisions concerning the admission of Artificial Intelligence [AI] created evidence at trial with increasing frequency. This issue is the focus of a recent article posted on the Internet by Rochester attorney Nicole Black, initially published in her column in The Daily Record.

Click HERE to access Ms. Black's article.