Are per diem substitute teachers eligible for unemployment for the period between two academic years (summer vacation)?

No. Patricia Murphy, a per diem substitute working in Manhattan, worked 154 days during the 2008-2009 school year. On June 12, 2009 she received a letter from the DOE that she would be employed the following September. She applied for unemployment insurance benefits at the end of June and was denied. The Third Department affirmed.

The Court held, “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.”

Observation: Under the sketchy terms of the recent agreement between the UFT and the DOE it appears that ATRs will replace many per diem substitute. If that is the case per diems should be able to receive unemployment insurance as no “reasonable assurance of continued employment” can be given by the DOE.

In the Matter of the Claim of  [*1]  PATRICIA J. MURPHY, Appellant. and COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.511370, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, 2011 NY Slip Op 5396; 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5268, June 23, 2011, Decided, June 23, 2011, Entered

Advertisement

Is a request for medical arbitration necessary before going to Court to challenge a Line of Duty Injury request?

Anna Carter, a teacher assigned to the Reassignment Center, claimed a line of duty injury. She claimed that the injury occurred when “My knees were giving me pain I stood to go to the bathroom, and I tripped over two chair legs that were  straddling one another. ”

She completed the necessary paperwork and took an extended time before she was able to return to work.

Her OP-198 was not properly signed by the Superintendent and she was unable to produce a proper approval. Nevertheless the matter was heard by the Medical Board where Line of Duty status was denied. Carter then received a bill for a payroll overpayment of almost $34,000. No demand for medical arbitration was ever made by Carter or by the Union on her behalf.

Carter brought a petition in Supreme Court seeking the Line of Duty Injury status and the cancellation of the DOE recoupment of the alleged overpayment.

Justice Stallman found that the Court was powerless to review Carter claim because the Union contract permitted only medical arbitration as the exclusive remedy to challenge the Medical Board’s denial of LODI status.
In the Matter of the Application of ANNA CARTER, Petitioner, – against – Board of Education/Leaves Admin./HR Connect, Respondents. Index No. 401498/10, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY, 2011 NY Slip Op 31061U; 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1941, April 22, 2011