ILNews

Professor entitled to unemployment benefits

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
University professors who do not have their fixed-termed contracts renewed after the contract expires are entitled to unemployment benefits because their resulting unemployment isn't voluntary, ruled the Indiana Supreme Court Tuesday.

In Indiana State University v. William C. LaFief, et al., No. 93S02-0801-EX-17, William LaFief was hired by Indiana State University as an assistant professor for one academic year and was reappointed for the following year. After his second academic year at the university, LaFief was told by the school he would not be reappointed for a third year.

LaFief applied for unemployment benefits. An administrative law judge ruled he wasn't entitled to benefits because he wasn't "discharged" because his employment ended at the end of his contract term. The Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board reversed the ALJ's decision; the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the Review Board and agreed with the ALJ that LaFief wasn't discharged and didn't qualify for unemployment.

A split Supreme Court agreed with the Review Board, ruling LaFief didn't become voluntarily unemployed at the expiration of his contract term. The point of an employment contract is to require the parties continue the employment during the contract's term, and being a contract employee doesn't waive the right to receive unemployment benefits. To hold otherwise would encourage employers to require these fixed-term employment contracts as a way to avoid unemployment compensation liability, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

"The fact that LaFief had warning that his employment could terminate upon the contract's expiration does not change the fact that at the end of the year he became unemployed. The termination of his employment was no more voluntary than the termination of employment of an employee at will, who is presumably on notice that his employment could terminate at any time," he wrote.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Shepard made a note that the ruling in this case doesn't alter the general rule that employees who contractually agree to mandatory vacation periods or temporary shutdowns - such as teachers - aren't eligible for unemployment benefits as long as they have reasonable assurance they will continue to be employed after the mandatory vacation or temporary shutdown period ends.

In a dissent - with which Justice Robert Rucker concurred - Justice Brent Dickson wrote he would reverse the Review Board's decision because LaFief had no employment or leave from which to be discharged. In entering a fixed-term contract, he voluntarily agreed that his employment would end at the conclusion of the academic year. LaFief wasn't discharged nor did he leave his job during the contract-term, so he wasn't eligible for unemployment benefits.

"The professor expressly contracted that his employment would expire at the end of its fixed term. He is thus responsible and accountable for his subsequent unemployment," Justice Dickson wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My daughters' kids was removed from the home in March 2015, she has been in total compliance with the requirements of cps, she is going to court on the 4th of August. Cps had called the first team meeting last Monday to inform her that she was not in compliance, by not attending home based therapy, which is done normally with the children in the home, and now they are recommending her to have a psych evaluation, and they are also recommending that the children not be returned to the home. This is all bull hockey. In this so called team meeting which I did attend for the best interest of my child and grandbabies, I learned that no matter how much she does that cps is not trying to return the children and the concerns my daughter has is not important to cps, they only told her that she is to do as they say and not to resist or her rights will be terminated. I cant not believe the way Cps treats people knowing if they threaten you with loosing your kids you will do anything to get them back. My daughter is drug free she has never put her hands on any of her children she does not scream at her babies at all, but she is only allowed to see her kids 6 hours a week and someone has to supervise. Lets all tske a stand against the child protection services. THEY CAN NO LONGER TAKE CHILDREN FROM THERE PARENTS.

  2. Planned Parenthood has the government so trained . . .

  3. In a related story, an undercover video team released this footage of the government's search of the Planned Parenthood facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXVN7QJ8m88

  4. Here is an excellent movie for those wanting some historical context, as well as encouragement to stand against dominant political forces and knaves who carry the staves of governance to enforce said dominance: http://www.copperheadthemovie.com/

  5. Not enough copperheads here to care anymore, is my guess. Otherwise, a totally pointless gesture. ... Oh wait: was this done because somebody want to avoid bad press - or was it that some weak kneed officials cravenly fear "protest" violence by "urban youths.."

ADVERTISEMENT