Paynes v Detroit Board of Education
Digest no. 5.11
Cite as: Paynes v Detroit Board of Ed, 150 Mich App 358 (1986).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Linda Paynes & Valerie Whalen
Employer: Detroit Board of Education & School Dist-City of Detroit
Docket no.: B82 18913 86673 & B81 22828 81799
Date of decision: April 7, 1986
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “Thus, we hold that to be denied unemployment benefits pursuant to MCL 421.27(i)(1)(a); MSA 17.529(i)(1)(a), the school denial period provision, a teacher must be (1) reasonably assured of reemployment the following year in an instructional, research or principal administrative capacity, and (2) the economic terms and conditions of the employment for the following year must be reasonably similar to those in the preceding year.”
FACTS: During the 81-82 school year claimants Whalen and Paynes were both Regular Contract Teachers. Due to economic conditions both were notified they would not be regular teachers the following year. However, applications were provided for regular emergency substitute teacher (RES) positions. An RES is guaranteed employment every day school is open, however, the benefits and wages are substantially less than for contract teachers.
DECISION: Claimant Paynes did not receive reasonable assurance and is not subject to the school denial period. Remanded for additional fact-finding regarding claimant Whalen.
RATIONALE: The court specifically declined to incorporate the “suitability” criteria contained in Section 29(6) and (7) of the MES Act into the school denial provision of Section 27(i). However, the court said, “We agree with the MESC that wage disparity should be considered before denying a teacher unemployment benefits when a contract or reasonable assurance of employment in a instructional, research or principal administrative capacity is proffered for the successive academic year. We also agree … that, for purposes of the school denial period provision, an offer or reasonable assurance to an employee previously employed in either an instructional, research or principal administrative capacity of reemployment for the following academic year in any of these three capacities is adequate with respect to the type of employment. Employment in any of these capacities is legislatively-deemed to be appropriate with respect to the type of proffered employment.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90