California court agrees that claimants were eligible for benefits if summer session is ‘regular’ term
News
Wednesday, June 24, 2020

California court agrees that claimants were eligible for benefits if summer session is ‘regular’ term

By Payroll and Entitlements Editorial Staff

A teacher's union sought a writ of administrative mandate on behalf of certain substitute teachers and other public school employees, contending that these members, all of whom had been provided with reasonable assurance of continued employment, were improperly denied benefits. In a companion appeal, the Appeals Board challenged a separate superior court ruling invalidating a precedent benefit decision that would have permitted substitute teachers to receive unemployment benefits if they were “on-call” during a summer school session and did not work. Upon remand, the appellate court considered the matter and agreed with the earlier state Supreme Court ruling, which held that “a summer session does not fall within the period of unemployment benefits ineligibility … if the summer session is a ‘regular’ term—that is, if the summer session, as a whole, resembles the other academic terms of the school year in terms of enrollment, staffing, budget, instructional program, or other objective characteristics.” It then reversed the trial court’s order denying the union's petition for a writ of mandate and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the state Supreme Court's decision (United Educators of San Francisco v. UIAB, Cal. Ct. of App., First District, DIVISION ONE (Unpub. Op.), Nos. A142858, A143428, May 05, 2020).

Back to Top

Interested in submitting an article?

Submit your information to us today!

Learn More