Opinion ID: 1947590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasonable Assurance

Text: In reaching its conclusion in regard plaintiffs Mary Baker, Debra Girard, Kristen Henson, Beverly Jackson, Joan McDonald, Sheila Morgan, Carol Viscera, and Brenda Warnock, the District Court failed to afford sufficient weight to other elements of reasonable assurance by the school department. See Preziosi, 529 A.2d at 137 (board determines what constitutes reasonable assurance after examination of all relevant facts). The record reveals that the June 13, 1990, letter was not the sole assurance given to plaintiffs. As noted above, on June 13, 1990, in addition to receiving a letter from the superintendent of schools, the teachers were informed that twenty vacancies existed for the upcoming year, that they (plaintiffs) had priority for these positions, and that uncertainty over the retirement program, as well as a lack of firm funding, had necessitated the distribution of layoff notices. The plaintiffs were also told the specifics of the recall process and were told that the school department expected to recall them. In fact, all plaintiffs, including Jeanne Calnan, were subsequently recalled within two months of this meeting. On appeal, plaintiffs also argued that the totality of the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the June 13, 1990, meeting gave the teachers no assurance of reemployment, let alone reasonable assurance. In particular, plaintiffs alleged that the school department's statement that it expected to recall plaintiffs was undermined by the school department's advice to apply for unemployment benefits and by the notice from the school department concerning plaintiffs' coverage for health-insurance benefits beyond the given term. On the one hand, plaintiffs were told they would be rehired, but on the other hand, they were given information concerning preparations for unemployment. Although we agree that the circumstances surrounding the June 13, 1990, meeting are proper factors to consider when determining whether plaintiffs received reasonable assurance of employment, we are of the opinion that the board did not misconstrue or ignore these factors in reaching its conclusion. We note first that, contrary to plaintiffs' allegation, it is not clear that the teachers were actually told by the school department representatives on June 13, 1990, to apply for unemployment benefits. The record contains contradictory testimony as to the substance of the June 13, 1990, discussion regarding this issue. At the August 10, 1990, hearing, Chevrette testified that after one of the teachers instructed and encouraged plaintiffs to apply for unemployment benefits, a school department representative informed the teachers to do as they must but to be aware that the school department would do what it had to  contest the claims. Even if we were to assume that a school department representative had in fact told the teachers to apply for unemployment benefits, such advice cannot be taken in isolation from the rest of the meeting. Chevrette's testimony clearly demonstrates that the purpose of the June 13, 1990, meeting was to answer the teachers' questions regarding their positions during the upcoming year as well as their current status with the school department. According to Chevrette, he continued to provide the teachers with as much information as he had available, including a recall list, and to reassure them of employment during the 1990-1991 school year. The plaintiffs, in their testimony on August 10, 1990, agreed in part with Chevrette's version of the substance of the meeting. In light of Chevrette's testimony, it was not clearly erroneous for the board to conclude that the teachers were given reasonable assurances of employment even if they were advised of their right to file for unemployment benefits. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the board gave proper consideration to the fact that the teachers were given information about the health insurance and the method of continuing coverage. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that any cautious expectation of work was crushed by the June 13, 1990, revelation that medical coverage would be available after September 30, 1990, at your own expense. On appeal plaintiffs questioned: If the [school department] `reasonably' believed that the teachers would be re-employed, then why did it feel compelled to warn about future medical coverage? The simple answer is that the school department was unable at the time of the warning to definitively grant the teachers employment for the upcoming year. A reasonable and valid concern of the teachers in the event they were not recalled would be medical coverage. Because the school department could not guarantee employment, it could not guarantee health-insurance coverage, even though it provided the school department's policy at a meeting that reassured plaintiffs about possible employment in the upcoming fall term. In sum, our review of the entire record reveals that legally competent evidence supports the board's denial of benefits to plaintiffs. See DePetrillo, 623 A.2d at 34. Not only were plaintiffs informed by letter that the school department expected to rehire them in the upcoming year, but they were also reassured by information concerning vacancies and job prospects. Based on the entire record, we are unable to conclude that it was clearly erroneous for the board to find that plaintiffs were given reasonable assurances of employment. The District Court, therefore, erred by substituting its judgment for that of the board in regard to whether plaintiffs received reasonable assurance of employment. See Berberian v. Department of Employment Security, 414 A.2d 480, 482 (R.I. 1980). The reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record is competent to support a finding of reasonable assurances. Thus, denial of unemployment benefits pursuant to § 28-44-68 was proper. See DePetrillo, 623 A.2d at 34.