You are here: / Unemployment Insurance
, ,

SUBSTITUTE TEACHER NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN TWO SUCCESSIVE ACADEMIC YEARS DURING THE PANDEMIC BECAUSE HE RECEIVED ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant, a substitute teacher, was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits between two successive academic years (during the COVID pandemic) because he had received assurance of continued employment. The dissenters disagreed with the majority’s conclusion claimant had been assured of continued employment:

“[P]ursuant to Labor Law § 590 (10), 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” … . “A reasonable assurance has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period” … . “Notably, the question of whether a claimant received a reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following academic year is a question of fact and, if the Board’s findings in that regard are supported by substantial evidence, they will not be disturbed” … . Matter of Jensen (Commissioner of Labor), 2024 NY Slip Op 06253, Third Dept 12-12-24

Practice Point: A substitute teacher is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits during the period between two successive academic years if he or she has received assurance of continued employment.

 

,

CLAIMANT, A TEACHER IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL, WAS NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME TO CONSULT WITH HER DOCTOR ABOUT WHETHER TO OBEY THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; THE DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS REVERSED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant, a teacher in a Catholic school, was not given enough time to consult with her doctor about the COVID vaccine. Claimant had been informed on or about September 24 she would be terminated if she did not get vaccinated by September 27. Claimant had already had COVID and wanted to discuss whether she had natural immunity with her doctor. The Board deemed her unable to meet an essential function of her job on September 28 and denied Unemployment Insurance benefits:

Although claimant testified that she was unsure about whether to get the vaccine, when she was asked, hypothetically, if she would have gotten the vaccine to keep her job if she had been provided more time, she testified that she would have if she “knew it was safe” and that she “probably” would have, provided she was given an opportunity to consult with her doctor. Even crediting the ALJ’s finding that claimant was notified on September 23, 2021 about the possibility of a vaccine requirement, providing claimant with only four days, two of which were weekend days, to comply with the vaccination mandate was unreasonable. In light of this finding, the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed … . Matter of Antonaros (Commissioner of Labor), 2024 NY Slip Op 00217, Third Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: The claimant had had COVID and wanted to talk to her doctor about natural immunity before deciding to obey the vaccine mandate. Claimant was not given enough time to do so. The denial of Unemployment Insurance benefits was reversed and the matter remitted.

 

, , ,

TEACHERS EMPLOYED AT STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES WORKED FROM SEPTEMBER TO JUNE BUT WERE PAID AN ANNUAL SALARY; WHEN EXTRA SUMMER WORK WAS CANCELLED DUE TO COVID THEY APPLIED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS; BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT UNEMPLOYED THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan. affirming the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimants, who worked as teachers at state correctional facilities from September through June but were paid an annual salary, were not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits for the additional summer employment which was not available due to COVID. The fact that the claimants could elect to either be paid every month or only during the school year was not determinative. The claimants had an “annual” salary and therefore were not unemployed during the summer:

Under state law, regular unemployment insurance benefits require total unemployment …, which is defined as “the total lack of any employment on any day” (Labor Law § 522 [emphasis added]). “Whether a claimant is totally unemployed and thereby entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . In finding that claimants were not totally unemployed during the summer 2020 recess, the Board properly relied upon Civil Service Law § 136, which applies to teachers and instructors at state institutions, including those operated by DOCCS, and provides that the “annual salary” for those employees may be paid over 10 months or 12 months … . If they are required to work outside of the academic year, they must receive “additional compensation” beyond their annual salary, which, by definition, compensates them for the entire 12-month year including the summer recess … .

The fact that optional, additional work was not available over the summer of 2020, as it had been in prior years, does not change the analysis or conclusion that claimants remained employed over the summer recess, i.e., they were not totally unemployed … . Matter of Almindo (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision–Commissioner of Labor), 2023 NY Slip Op 06424, 3rd Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: Teachers who are paid an annual salary, even if paid September through June, are not unemployed during the summer. Therefore, if additional summer work becomes unavailable (due to COVID for example), the teachers are not entitled unemployment benefits for the summer months.

 

THE BOARD’S RULING THAT CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DELIVERY SERVICE WAS UPHELD; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE FACTS WERE MOST SIMILAR TO ANOTHER DECISION INVOLVING THE SAME EMPLOYER WHERE THE COURT FOUND NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, upheld the Unemployment Insurance Board’s ruling that claimant was an employee of the delivery service (NEL) entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [A]fter claimant applied to be a delivery driver, NEL conducted a screening process that included a verification of claimant’s driver’s license, a Department of Motor Vehicles background check and proof by claimant of relevant insurance coverage. Thereafter, NEL and claimant executed a written “Owner Operator Agreement,” wherein claimant was required, among other things, to provide a safe vehicle, maintain relevant licenses and insurance and to provide NEL with invoices for completed client engagements in order to be paid. Claimant and NEL negotiated a set rate of pay and claimant was responsible for all expenses, including the cost of fuel and equipment, but NEL provided that claimant’s pay could be increased during times of high fuel prices by way of a fuel surcharge. Claimant was required to pay an administrative fee to NEL for each day of provided services. Claimant could refuse any assignment and could subcontract out an accepted assignment. If an accepted assignment could not be completed, claimant was required to notify NEL, and it was then NEL that provided another delivery driver. NEL also provided claimant with the client’s address and the time that claimant was to report there. Any complaints made to NEL’s client regarding claimant were forwarded to NEL, which NEL handled.

It is true that claimant bears some similarities to the claimant in Matter of Pasini (Northeast Logistics, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (204 AD3d 1187 [3d Dept 2022]). The facts here, however, are more in line with Matter of Legros (Northeast Logistics, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (205 AD3d 1245 [3d Dept 2022]) and Matter of Rivera (Northeast Logistics, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor) (204 AD3d 1185 [3d Dept 2022]), where the finding of an employment relationship was upheld. That said, although there is evidence in the record that could support a contrary determination, in view of the evidence credited by the Board, substantial evidence supports the finding that an employment relationship exists … .

From the dissent:

Given the distinct similarity between the circumstances here and in Pasini, it is my view that the record lacks substantial evidence of the requisite control to establish an employer-employee relationship. Matter of McIntyre (Northeast Logistics, Inc.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00465.Third Dept 1-2-23

Practice Point: This case illustrates the importance of precedent based on similar facts in unemployment-insurance cases. Here the majority held the facts were similar to another case involving the same employer where an employment relationship was found. The dissent argued the facts were most similar to another case involving the same employer where no employment relationship was not found.

 

,

PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW SECTION 511, THE NEW YORK CITY SUPPER CLUB WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF THE MUSICIANS, DANCERS AND OTHER PERFORMERS WHO ENTERTAINED AT THE CLUB; THEREFORE THE CLUB WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO MAKE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PERFORMERS (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined that the musicians, dancers and other artists who performed at a New York City supper club (Griffs) were not employees of the club under Labor Law 511. Therefore the club was not obligated to make additional unemployment insurance contributions with respect to those performers:

Pursuant to Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a), the term employment includes “any service by a person for an employer . . . as a professional musician or a person otherwise engaged in the performing arts, and performing services as such for a . . . restaurant, night club or similar establishment unless, by written contract, such musician or person is stipulated to be an employee of another employer covered by [the Labor Law]” … . “The statute, which was designed to extend the availability of unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation benefits to those in the performing arts, creates a rebuttal presumption of employment” … — a presumption that may be rebutted by a written contract establishing that the performer in question is the employee of another covered employer … . …

… [T]he sole contested issue is whether a provision contained within the written agreements executed by the performers established that they were “employee[s] of another employer covered by [the Labor Law]” (Labor Law § 511 [1] [b] [1-a]). To that end, paragraph No. 8 of the performers’ contracts with Griffs provides, in relevant part, that Griffs “is not nor shall become [the performers’] employer, as other corporations employ them” … . Matter of Griffs Global Corp. (Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 06670, Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Under Labor Law 511 the musicians, dancers and other performers who entertained at the New York City supper club were not employees of the club because their contracts stated they were employees of other corporations. Therefore, the club was not required to make unemployment insurance contributions on behalf of the performers.

 

, , ,

EVEN IF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND CLAIMANT INSURANCE BROKER INCLUDED ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN LABOR LAW 511, THE BROKER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE IF THE SERVICES ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE BROKER ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the insurance company, Paul Revere, did not demonstrate that claimant insurance broker was not an employee. Claimant was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Labor Law § 511 (21) provides that “[t]he term ’employment’ shall not include the services of a licensed insurance agent or broker if,” among other things, “the services performed by the agent or broker are performed pursuant to a written contract” … that, in turn, contains seven statutorily enumerated provisions … . Here, the Board concluded that two of the seven statutory requirements were absent from the written agreement entered into between claimant and Paul Revere — specifically, provisions demonstrating that claimant was “permitted to work any hours he . . . chooses” … and was “permitted to work out of his . . . own office or home or the office of the person for whom services are performed” … . Paul Revere disagrees, contending that article XI (A) of the written contract satisfies such requirements by providing that “Paul Revere shall not exercise nor have the right to exercise direction or control over [claimant’s] time, when or how [claimant] may work, or over the activities of [claimant].”

… [W]e agree with the Board that the conclusory and sweeping language employed in article XI (A) of the contract does not satisfy the requirements of Labor Law § 511 (21) (d) (iii) and (iv). … [E]ven assuming, without deciding, that the written agreement between Paul Revere and claimant did … fulfill all of the statutory requirements, we agree with the Board’s further conclusion that the parties’ conduct was inconsistent with the provisions of Labor Law § 511 (21) and, therefore, the services performed by claimant do not fall within the statutory exclusion…. . …

… [T]he statute requires both that the contract at issue contain the seven enumerated provisions and “that the services performed by the insurance agent or broker actually be consistent with those provisions” … . Matter of Hoyt (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 06518, Third Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: Even if the contract between the insurer and claimant insurance broker includes all the statutory provisions in Labor Law 511 (such that the broker would not be considered an employee for unemployment insurance purposes), if the services actually performed by the broker are not consistent with those contract provisions the broker may be deemed an employee eligible for benefits.

 

GROUNDANYWHERE DRIVERS, LIKE UBER DRIVERS, ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined drivers who work for Groundanywhere, like the drivers who work for Uber, are employees not independent contractors, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Shortly after the [Unemployment Insurance Appeal] Board’s decision here, we held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc in upstate New York were employees of Uber … . We find that the relationship between Groundanywhere and its drivers is not materially distinguishable from the employment relationship between Uber and its drivers. The record reflects that Groundanywhere uses a smartphone app that is essentially similar to the one used by Uber and exercises a comparable level of control over its drivers, providing substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant and other similarly situated drivers were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and for whom Groundanywhere was liable for additional contributions … . The indicia of control include use of an app owned by Groundanywhere, which reviews and screens drivers’ various credentials and inspects their vehicles for compliance with its standards, provides drivers with a GPS navigation system, tests their knowledge of geography and ability to use GPS, and handles both driver and client complaints and problems that arise during the transport. Groundanywhere coordinates and oversees all aspects of the ride through its app, tracking the drivers and the ride on GPS and running a help desk for the drivers and controlling the drivers’ access to its clients. Groundanywhere sets and calculates the fares, keeps a set percent as a fee, charges the client a processing fee, adds a gratuity which, if disputed by the client, results in the driver getting a higher percent of the fare in lieu of a gratuity, collects the charges from the client and pays a percent of the base charge to the drivers, who are paid even if the client fails to show up for the trip or disputes the charges. Although drivers use and maintain their own vehicles and pay all vehicle expenses, they display a Groundanywhere logo and are reimbursed for tolls and parking costs. Clients are able to rate drivers, who are selected based upon their location, ratings and history of accepting offered fares. Matter of Hossain (Groundanywhere LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 03424, Third Dept 5-26-22

Practice Point: Uber drivers, and drivers for similar outfits like Groundanywhere, are employees, not independent contractors, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

 

STAFFING COMPANY WHICH SCREENED JOB APPLICANTS FOR ITS CLIENTS WAS NOT AN EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined Strikeforce Staffing was not an employer of the persons for whom it found employment with its clients. Therefore, Strikeforce was not liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to the claimant and others similarly situated:

Strikeforce recruited job seekers for its clients, businesses in need of workers, by placing advertisements on various websites. For example, claimant completed an application on Indeed.com for a line production position at a bakery. Strikeforce would first screen a job seeker’s application to see if he or she potentially met a client’s needs and, if so, send the individual for an interview with the client. The client would make a hiring decision and, according to the testimony of the owner and operator of Strikeforce, Strikeforce clients did not hire about 30% to 40% of the applicants referred to them. If hired, the client, not Strikeforce, would provide the worker with his or her rate of pay, which the worker was free to negotiate with the client, and the worker’s schedule. * * *

As Strikeforce does not exercise any control over the manner in which the workers hired by its clients perform their services, the means used to supply those services or the results produced, we cannot find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that Strikeforce exercised sufficient direction, supervision and control over claimant, and those similarly situated, to demonstrate an employment relationship … . Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 02849, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: A staffing company which screens job applicants for its clients but which exercises no supervisory control over the applicants who are hired is not liable for unemployment insurance contributions.

 

CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF NEL, A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH ASSIGNED CLAIMANT TO DELIVER AUTO PARTS FOR ITS CLIENT, ANY-PART AUTO STORES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant was not an employee of NEL, a business logistics company, and NEL was, therefore, not liable for unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated. Claimant was a delivery driver who was assigned by NEL to deliver auto parts for Any-Part Auto Stores:

The record reflects that, after NEL initially referred claimant to Any-Part, NEL did not retain any supervisory authority over him. NEL did not provide any training, set delivery goals for claimant, conduct performance reviews or evaluations, require any proof of delivery or require any contact from claimant on a day-to-day basis. Any-Part assigned the deliveries to claimant and handled any complaints. Claimant used his own vehicle, NEL did not reimburse him for any expenses and claimant was not restricted from working for others. Under the parties’ written agreement, claimant could refuse an assignment, but, once he accepted an assignment, he was required to complete it. Per the agreement, claimant was permitted to hire other individuals to perform the work if claimant could not, and claimant was responsible for ensuring that those individuals comply with state and federal regulations, including licensing and insurance requirements. … . Matter of Pasini (Northeast Logistics, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 02464, Third Dept 4-14-22

 

,

CLAIMANT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SUBMIT AS EVIDENCE A FLYER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHICH INDICATED IT WAS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR STATE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS; THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO WHETHER CLAIMANT WILLFULLY MISREPRESENTED HER EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant should have been allowed to present evidence that her misrepresentation that she was not employed was not willful. Based on a flyer put out by the Department of Labor, claimant allegedly believed that she needed to apply for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for federal pandemic unemployment insurance:

At the hearing, claimant requested to admit over 50 pages of documentation into the record. Included in these documents is a flyer, which claimant contends was on the Department of Labor’s website and led her to believe that, despite not being eligible for state unemployment benefits, she may have been entitled to pandemic unemployment assistance under federal legislation that was put in place due to the coronavirus pandemic. Claimant argues that she understood this flyer to mean that she was required to apply for state unemployment benefits to obtain relief under the federal legislation. A fair interpretation of the flyer supports that contention. Also included in these documents is evidence of claimant’s many attempts to contact the Department of Labor to determine whether she was, in fact, entitled to the benefits that she was receiving. As these documents bear directly on the issue of determining whether claimant’s misrepresentation was willful, as well as on claimant’s credibility, not allowing them into evidence denied her “a sufficient opportunity to present proof in support of her claim” and did, in fact, deprive her of a fair hearing … . Matter of Nottage (Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 02476, Third Dept 4-14-22

Practice Point: Here a flyer put out by the Department of Labor indicated it was necessary to apply for state unemployment benefits to be eligible for federal pandemic unemployment benefits. Claimant sought to introduce the flyer in evidence to show her misrepresentation that she was not employed was not “willful.” The evidence should have been considered by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy