You are here: / Unemployment Insurance

Quitting in Anticipation of Discharge Is Not “Good Cause” for Leaving Employment

The Third Department noted that quitting a job in anticipation of discharge does not constitute good cause for resignation.  Matter of Gijacalone…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06355, 3rd Dept 9-25-14 

 

Under the Circumstances, Caring for Husband While Awaiting a Kidney Transplant in Florida Did Not Constitute “Good Cause” for Claimant’s Leaving her Employment–Employer Had Offered to Accommodate Claimant with Leaves of Absence

The Third Department determined claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.  Claimant moved to Florida to care for her husband while they awaited a kidney transplant.  Claimant’s employer had offered to accommodate claimant’s needs for leaves of absence:

“Relocating to retire with and care for one’s spouse does not constitute good cause for leaving employment absent proof of a compelling medical necessity for the move” … . Claimant provided no medical documentation indicating that she had received medical advice to join her husband in Florida …, nor did she explain the five-month delay in relocating to Florida after she resigned. In any event, claimant’s husband received a kidney transplant six months after she resigned, and the employer indicated both that it would have granted her an additional leave of absence and that continuing work was available to her. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Matter of Marie C Lahens…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06349, 3rd Dept 9-25-14

 

Claimant Was an Employee Notwithstanding a Written Agreement Describing Her as an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of Prometric Inc.  Claimant was hired as a nurse aide evaluator (NAE) to evaluate nursing assistant candidates.  The fact that the written agreement labeled claimant as an independent contractor was not determinative:

It is well settled that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence …. Significantly, where, as here, the work of medical professionals is involved, the pertinent inquiry is whether the purported employer retained overall control over the work performed … .

Here, Prometric developed an assessment tool to be used to evaluate the skills that a test candidate needed to perform and conducted annual training sessions with claimant and other NAEs to ensure consistency in testing. Prometric interviewed individuals that it wished to retain as NAEs and reimbursed them for mileage and travel expenses. It established an hourly rate of pay for specific work activities, but other rates were sometimes negotiated depending upon the circumstances. The work of the NAEs was performed off site either at nursing homes or training facilities and the NAEs chose their work assignments from a computer-generated list. Although the NAEs had flexibility in scheduling their assignments and did not have set hours, if an NAE was unable to show, Prometric was responsible for finding a replacement or canceling the test. Notably, Prometric provided claimant with all testing materials and other equipment needed to evaluate the candidates, had him wear an identification badge and required him to maintain strict confidentiality. Furthermore, Prometric had a senior nurse evaluator conduct an annual review of claimant’s work who assisted him in correcting any deficiencies. The foregoing indicates that Prometric retained sufficient overall control over the work of claimant and other similarly situated NAEs to be considered their employer … . Accordingly, notwithstanding the written agreement labeling claimant an independent contractor …, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decisions. Matter of Makey, 2014 NY Slip Op 06226, 2nd Dept 9-18-14

 

,

Teacher’s Refusing to Agree to One Year Extension of Probationary Period Did Not Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and determined that a teacher’s refusing to sign an agreement that would have extended her probationary period was not disqualifying misconduct:

Refusing to comply with an employer’s reasonable directive to sign a document can constitute insubordination and, thus, disqualifying misconduct … . This is not a situation, however, in which claimant was asked, and refused, to sign a document that was necessary to the operation of the employer’s business … . Under the Education Law, where a teacher has been on probationary status for three years, the employer must either grant the teacher tenure, terminate the employment or agree to an extension of the probationary term (see Education Law § 2573 [1]; … see also Education Law §§ 2509 [1]; 3012 [1]; 3014 [1]). Here, the employer chose not to grant claimant tenure and, instead, offered her an extension of probation. As opposed to refusing to perform a job duty, claimant merely declined to enter into a new contract with the employer on its proffered terms … . Although claimant’s refusal to sign the extension agreement could possibly be classified as her voluntarily leaving employment without good cause while the employer was offering continuing work, which would be a basis for denying unemployment insurance benefits …, the employer did not assert that claimant quit. Matter of Jackson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06237, 2nd Dept 9-18-14

 

“Contract Attorney” Properly Determined to Be an Employe

The Third Department determined an attorney who was hired by a firm as a “contract attorney” was entitled to unemployment benefits:

“[I]t is well settled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” … . Inasmuch as the work at issue here involved professional services that generally do not lend themselves to close supervision or control of the details of the work, the pertinent inquiry is whether the employer has retained “overall control,” and “substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means is sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship” … . In that regard, West hired claimant after an interview and based upon his analytical expertise acquired during a federal clerkship. West set his rate of pay at $100 an hour or on a per project basis, and provided him with a parking pass, office, desk, computer, receptionist, a firm email address and information technology support. Two attorneys supervised him, gave him instructions on how to perform his tasks, told him to ask permission before pursuing new legal issues, reviewed his work and made revisions. He was also covered under West’s malpractice insurance. In our view, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant was an employee of West, even if evidence exists to support a contrary conclusion… . Matter of Lavalley, 2014 NY Slip Op 06232, 3rd Dept 9-18-14

 

,

Failure to Subpoena Witness Required Reversal

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board because the putative employer, Brody, was entitled to call the claimant as a witness in a proceeding to determine whether Brody was required to make further unemployment insurance contributions. Claimant had done work for Brody and had subsequently applied for and was granted unemployment insurance benefits. Brody asked that claimant be subpoenaed to testify but the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the request:

Brody was entitled to call claimant as a witness and, moreover, had the right to request that the ALJ issue a subpoena to compel her attendance (see Labor Law § 622 [1]; 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]…). Claimant plainly had relevant testimony to offer as to whether an employer-employee relationship existed between her and Brody. The ALJ nevertheless declined to issue the requested subpoena, pointing out that counsel for Brody could have subpoenaed claimant directly. The failure to either issue a subpoena or to adjourn the proceedings so that counsel could do so constituted an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case and, thus, “we believe that the proper course is to reverse the Board’s decision and remit this matter for further proceedings”… . Matter of Philip…, 2014 Slip Op 06129, 3rd Dept 9-11-14

 

Tutors Are Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance

The Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board' determination that tutors were employees of “Ivy League” entitled to unemployment insurance:

This Court previously has held that “an organization which screens the services of professionals, pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clients exercises sufficient control to create and employment relationship” … . Here, there is no question that Ivy League screened, interviewed and conducted a criminal background check with respect to prospective tutors, paid the tutors affiliated with it an agreed-upon hourly rate based upon documentation submitted by the tutors and matched individual clients with the tutor that it deemed best suited for that particular client's needs. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the written agreement governing Ivy League's relationship with each individual tutor, Ivy League restricted the tutor's solicitation of Ivy League's clients — both during the period of time encompassed by the particular contract and for three years thereafter. Matter of Ivy League Tutoring Connection Inc…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05481, 3rd Dept 7-24-14

 

Anesthesiologist Was Not an Employee

The Third Department determined an anesthesiologist was not an employee of QPMA:

Where, as here, the work of medical professionals is involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the purported employer retained “‘overall control’ . . . ‘over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means'” … .

Here, undisputed evidence was presented that, after QPMA referred claimant to PCSC, claimant set her own work schedule, performed all services at PCSC’s location, used PCSC’s supplies and equipment, and wore surgical scrubs bearing PCSC’s logo. Claimant’s per diem rate of pay of $1,000 per day was agreed to by her and a principal of QPMA, and QPMA paid her twice a month. Notably, however, QPMA did not issue claimant a W2 form, have a written contract with her, verify her credentials, retain any supervisory authority over her, provide her with performance reviews or evaluations, or maintain medical records related to her services. In addition, claimant paid her own malpractice insurance and licensing fees, was not reimbursed for travel expenses and was not restricted from working for others. Significantly, it was PCSC that dealt with any complaints related to claimant’s services. Although QPMA was responsible for referring another anesthesiologist if claimant was unable to perform her duties, the record as a whole does not demonstrate that QPMA retained sufficient overall control over important aspects of claimant’s work to be considered claimant’s employer… . Matter of Jean-Pierre …, 2014 NY Slip Op 05397, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

Adjunct Professor Entitled to Unemployment Benefits Between Spring and Fall Semesters

The Third Department determined an adjunct professor who taught two courses in the spring and was offered two courses in the fall was entitled to unemployment benefits for the period between the spring and fall semesters:

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” … . “[T]he 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”. .. . Here, the Board found that reasonable assurance was lacking, based upon a contingency in the employer’s offer that current full-time professors could, at any time up to the first day of classes, displace claimant and teach the courses assigned to him themselves. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, it will not be disturbed. Matter of Cardin …, 2014 NY Slip Op 04995, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement

The Third Department upheld the determination that claimant was an employee, entitled to unemployment benefits, despite the existence of an independent contractor agreement.  Claimant was hired by AML, a consulting firm, for a four-week research project for one of AML’s clients.  Claimant worked at the client’s location:

Initially, we note that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … . In making this determination, particularly where the work of professionals is involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the employer exercised “control over important aspects of the services performed” … . Here, undisputed evidence was presented that AML set claimant’s rate of pay, established her work hours, provided training, conferred with her on a regular basis, reviewed her work product and submitted her final report to the client. Significantly, although claimant physically worked at the client’s location, an AML representative was present on a daily basis to discuss the project with claimant. Under the circumstances presented, notwithstanding the existence of the independent contractor agreement, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant and those similarly situated research analysts were AML’s employees … . Matter of Stewart…, 2014 NY Slip Op 04539, 3rd Dept 6-19-14

 

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