Matter of the Claim of Charlene M. Caruso (Shenendehowa Central School District — Commissioner of Labor)
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Unemployment insurance eligibility for per diem substitute teachers between academic years based on 'reasonable assurance' of continued employment.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (UIAB) found no reasonable assurance and awarded benefits.
The Appellate Division reversed the UIAB’s decision awarding benefits.
Because the employer’s letter offered continued work in the same capacity under substantially the same terms with earnings of at least 90% of the prior year, and record evidence (stable budget, no layoffs, continued need for substitutes) supported reasonable assurance; the UIAB improperly demanded a guarantee and misread testimony. See Labor Law § 590 (10) [precludes unemployment benefits between school terms for educational employees who have a reasonable assurance of continued employment].
Background
Charlene M. Caruso worked as a per diem substitute teacher for a school district. In 2022–2023 she completed 169 assignments out of 184 school days. On June 1, 2023, the district sent a Letter of Assurance stating she would continue in the same capacity for 2023–2024 under substantially the same economic terms, with expected earnings of no less than 90% of the prior year. She accepted but applied for unemployment benefits during the summer break. The Department of Labor (DOL) denied benefits under Labor Law § 590 (10) [precludes unemployment benefits between school terms for educational employees who have a reasonable assurance of continued employment].
Lower Court Decision
After a hearing, the ALJ reversed DOL and awarded benefits, finding no reasonable assurance. The UIAB affirmed, adopting the ALJ’s findings and adding that the employer’s witness lacked sufficient competence regarding the assignment registry and that no guarantee of assignments existed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held the UIAB’s decision lacked substantial evidence. The Letter of Assurance unqualifiedly stated continued work in the same capacity under the same economic terms with at least 90% of prior earnings, and testimony showed a stable budget, no layoffs, consistent student numbers, daily substitute needs, and similar assignment methods. Reasonable assurance does not require a guarantee of specific days or earnings, and the Board misread the testimony and improperly discounted the human resources specialist’s competence. The court reversed and remitted to the UIAB for further proceedings consistent with its decision.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that, under Labor Law § 590 (10) [precludes unemployment benefits between school terms for educational employees who have a reasonable assurance of continued employment], reasonable assurance is a representation—not a guarantee—of substantially similar terms with projected earnings of at least 90% of the prior year. A credible letter of assurance, coupled with evidence of stable operational conditions and continued need, suffices; lack of priority in assignment systems and variability in teacher absences do not defeat reasonable assurance.
For per diem school employees, a clear letter promising work in the same capacity under substantially the same economic terms with at least 90% of prior earnings, supported by stable district conditions and ongoing substitute needs, constitutes reasonable assurance; agencies may not require guaranteed assignments to deny summer unemployment benefits.