Labor & Employment Law

College professor employed on annual basis not entitled to unemployment over the summer

Matter of Gronowicz v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D.3d___(3d Dep't. Feb. 19, 2009), is an interesting unemployment case. The court held that a college professor employed on an annual basis was not considered unemployed during the summer. Therefore, he was not entitled to Unemployment Insurance benefits. As the court stated:

Whether a claimant is totally unemployed presents a factual issue for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Bernard [Commissioner of Labor], 53 AD3d 1006Matter of Chirico [Commissioner of Labor], 49 AD3d 1104, 1105 [2008]). Pursuant to two contracts collectively covering the period September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006, claimant was employed as a full-time substitute assistant professor. Although claimant testified that spring semester courses ended on or about May 25, 2006 and that he did not teach any classes over the summer, he admitted that he was paid on an annual basis and, hence, continued to receive paychecks during the summer of 2006. Nonetheless, when claimant applied for benefits, he answered "no" to a question regarding whether he was receiving a continuation of wages. Under such circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant was not totally unemployed (see Matter of Summers [New York City Bd. of Educ. Commissioner of Labor], 21 AD3d 669, 671 [2005]; Matter of Wolfson [Ross], 57 AD2d 10, 11 [1977]), as well as its imposition of a recoverable overpayment (see Matter of Bianco [Commissioner of Labor], 53 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 711 [2008]).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

NYPPL Comments: A similar issue was considered in Aljandari v Buffalo Bd. of Education, 245 A.D.2d 647, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 93 N.Y.2d 815, decided with Smith v Buffalo
Board of Education.

In the Aljandari case the Appellate Division sustained a determination by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that Aljandari and other "totally unemployed" teachers were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits during the school's 1995 summer recess.

The Appellate Division said that the fact that some of the teachers "were eligible for fringe benefits during the summer and elected to have their salary prorated to extend during this time" did not "compel the conclusion" that they were not totally unemployed during the summer.

In effect, the Court ruled that it was the term of the teacher's "professional obligation" rather than his or her payroll mode [21 pay periods or 26 pay periods] that was the critical element.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 18, 2009 (boomark / email).