A Claimant for unemployment insurance worked as a per diem substitute teacher for the employer, [School District]. During the 2022-2023 school year, Claimant had completed 169 assignments as an elementary school substitute, working either full or half days, out of the 184 days in that school year.
On June 1, 2023, School District emailed Claimant a "Letter of Assurance" informing Claimant that it wished to retain her as a substitute teacher in the same capacity in the 2023-2024 school year, under substantially the same economic terms and conditions as the prior year, and that her expected earnings would be no less than 90% of the prior year's earnings. Claimant acknowledged receipt of the School District's letter and advised School District that she wished to remain on the substitute teacher list for 2023-2024 school year. Nevertheless, between the academic terms, Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits.
The Department of Labor [Department] determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits, finding that the School District had offered Claimant a reasonable assurance of continued employment in the upcoming school year consistent with the provisions set out in Labor Law §590(10). Claimant appealed the Department's decision.
Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] reversed the Department's determination, finding that the School District had not provided Claimant with a reasonable assurance of continued employment. Ultimately the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, adopting the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and made additional factual findings. The School District appealed the Board's determination.
Labor Law §590(10) provides that "a professional employed by an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment". The Appellate Division, noting that "A reasonable assurance has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period", held "Whether an employee has received such assurances "is a factual issue for the Board" to resolve and its determination will be sustained "provided that it is supported by substantial evidence".
In this instance the Appellate Division concluded that "Upon review of the record ... the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence", observing that in reaching its conclusion, the Board essentially imposed a requirement that a reasonable assurance be a guarantee of earnings during the following school year, "an interpretation that finds no support in the statute or case law".
The Court held that the letter of assurance sent to Claimant indicated, without qualification, that she would be given the opportunity to perform services for the employer in the same capacity for the 2023-2024 school year, "under substantially the same economic terms and conditions as in the previous school year". Further, the Claimant was advised that "her name would remain on an automated electronic registry used for granting access to assignments", and that she would receive assignments in the same manner as the prior year "due to the continued need for substitutes during the 2023-2024 school year."
Although the letter did not advise Claimant that there would be a pay increase for per diem substitute teachers, the School District's letter promise that work would be available under the "same economic terms and conditions."
Given this record, including the letter of assurance and the testimony of the parties, the Appellate Division opined that there was "no reason to believe that the [School District's assurances [of continued employment] ... were illusory", and concluded that the Board's finding that the School District failed to provide Claimant with a reasonable assurance of continued employment "is not supported by substantial evidence and its decision must be reversed".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.