Opinion ID: 605609
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lisa Duda

Text: 26 Appellant concedes that Lida Duda did not average over 20 hours a week during the most recent 90 days. Appellant nonetheless argues that the average hours should be calculated based only on those days (56) out of the most recent 90 days during which Duda actually worked. 27 The Department of Labor regulations set forth the relevant period to consider in determining whether an employee has worked an average of fewer than 20 hours per week as the shorter of the actual time the worker has been employed or the most recent 90 days. 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(h). In the present case, when looking to Duda's most recent 90 days, 5 her average hours fall below the 20-hour minimum. 28 Appellant argues that Duda is a seasonal employee and, thus, the 90-day calculation for Duda should include only those days which she actually worked. Appellant's argument fails on two grounds. First, there is no evidence of record supporting the contention that Duda is in fact a seasonal employee. 6 29 Second, even if Duda were deemed a seasonal employee, appellant's argument that the 90-day calculation for seasonal employees should include only those days actually worked is unsupported by the statute or the regulations. The regulations discuss seasonal employees to the limited extent that such workers may be included within the term part-time employee. 7 The regulations do not set forth any guidelines for allowing seasonal employees to be classified as full-time employees based upon the nature of their work schedules and certainly do not require that only actual days worked be considered in the most recent ninety day calculation. 30 Accordingly, all 90 days are to be considered in calculating Duda's average number of hours. In so doing, the number of hours falls short of the required 20-hour per week minimum.