{
  "id": 8551640,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: GENEVA D. HUNTLEY Appellee and CHARLOTTE AREA FUND HEADSTART PROJECT Employer and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Huntley",
  "decision_date": "1979-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 7826SC804",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "4",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 N.C. App. 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 428,
    "char_count": 7099,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.798,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1937869685226118e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7743063398676912
    },
    "sha256": "61c6b923f9a271cf495150c1f866c2903e3a9c5a10a6c8809953f507934e6c79",
    "simhash": "1:be69872354c71235",
    "word_count": 1143
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:09.609845+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and ERWIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: GENEVA D. HUNTLEY Appellee and CHARLOTTE AREA FUND HEADSTART PROJECT Employer and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nG.S. 9643(a) provides in pertinent part: \u201cAn unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the Commission finds that\u2014 ... (3) He is able to work, and is available for work .... [A]ny employee of a secondary school system or subdivision of a secondary school system . . . shall be considered available for work during any week such individual is on vacation between successive terms . . . only if the individual does not have a contract . . . , written, oral, or implied . . . for . . . both such terms.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The sole issue which the parties argue before us on this appeal is whether Project Headstart is a \u201csecondary school\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 9643(a)(3).\n\u201cSecondary school\u201d is defined in G.S. 96-8(5)m: \u201cFor purposes of this Chapter, \u2018secondary school\u2019 means any school not an institution of higher education as defined in G.S. 96-8(5)1.\u201d \u201cInstitution of higher education\u201d is in turn defined by G.S. 96-8(5)1 as an educational institution which provides education beyond high school. Thus, if G.S. 96-13(a)(3) is to apply, Project Headstart must be found to be (1) a school, and (2) not an institution which provides education beyond high school. It clearly meets the second requirement, so we need consider only whether Project Headstart is, in fact, a school.\nPetitioner\u2019s arguments that Project Headstart is not a North Carolina public school and that it is federally funded and administered through a community action agency are not dispositive. G.S. 96-8(5)m refers not to \u201cany public school\u201d but simply to \u201cany school.\u201d Further, we think that the purpose behind the \u201csecondary school provision\u201d of G.S. 9643(a)(3) would not be served adequately if we read the statute as limited to public schools; school workers, whether in public or private employment, share the circumstance of temporarily not working from time to time because school work ordinarily is not year-round employment, but expecting to return to work when school begins again. We believe it is this type of \u201ctemporary unemployment\u201d which the legislature intended to except from unemployment benefits.\nProject Headstart is a federal program \u201cfocused upon children who have not reached the age of compulsory school attendance which . . . will provide such comprehensive health, nutritional, education, social, and other services as the Director finds will aid the children to attain their full potential.\u201d 42 USCA \u00a7 2809(a)(1). It may be that Headstart programs across the state choose varying formats to meet these needs, so we do not decide whether all Headstart programs are schools within the statutory definition. Instead, we focus on the characteristics of the Charlotte Area Fund Headstart Project, where petitioner is employed.\nPetitioner testified at the hearings before the claims and appeals deputies. Asked what type of work she did at Headstart, petitioner responded, \u201cTeacher.\u201d She works there from 8:00 a.m. till 3:30 p.m., five days a week, September through June.\nQ. . . . Exactly what are your job duties . . . ?\nA. . . . [W]hen they first come in ... we provide a snack for \u2019em and it\u2019s just a little, regular school.\nQ. It is what, nursery, kindergarden [sic]?\nA. Yes.\nQ. It\u2019s pre-school then.\nA. Yes.\nQ. Where you \u2014 go to school.\nA. Yes. Uh-huh.\n* * *\nQ. . . . [0]n your job duties you say you do provide some instructions, for the children, try and help them. I believe . . . you try and help them to reach a kind of parity in first grade with other children?\nA. Yes.\nBlack\u2019s Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th Ed. 1968) 1511 defines \u201cschool\u201d as a \u201cplace for instruction or education.\u201d \u201cEducation,\u201d in turn, \u201c[comprehends not merely the instruction received at school or college, but the whole course of training, moral, intellectual, and physical.\u201d Id. at 604. We believe that the purposes set out for Project Headstart in the federal statutes indicate that Headstart is to provide education in this broad sense, and that the format in which Headstart is conducted by the Charlotte Area Fund and the petitioner\u2019s testimony about the activities there show that this Project Headstart is a school within the ordinary meaning of the term. We find that petitioner\u2019s situation is one of those addressed by the \u201csecondary school provision\u201d of G.S. 96-13(a)(3), excluding from unemployment benefits those who are subject to school-related seasonal unemployment. The Commission correctly decided that the Charlotte Area Fund Project Headstart is a secondary school within the meaning of G.S. 96-13(a)(3). The judgment of the Superior Court is\nReversed.\nJudges MARTIN (Robert M.) and ERWIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donald S. Gillespie, Jr., for petitioner appellee.",
      "Howard G. Doyle, Garland D. Crenshaw, V. Henry Gransee, Jr. and Gail C. Arneke for respondent appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: GENEVA D. HUNTLEY Appellee and CHARLOTTE AREA FUND HEADSTART PROJECT Employer and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA Appellant\nNo. 7826SC804\n(Filed 19 June 1979)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 108\u2014 Project Headstart \u2014secondary school \u2014exclusion of teacher from unemployment compensation\nThe Charlotte Area Fund Project Headstart is a secondary school within the meaning of G.S. 96-13(a)(3), which excludes from unemployment benefits those who are subject to school-related seasonal employment.\n\u2022APPEAL by Employment Security Commission from David Smith, Judge. Judgment entered 5 June 1978 in Superior Court, MECKLENBURG County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 May 1979.\nAs in previous years, petitioner was given a separation notice in June 1977 when Project Headstart, where she was employed, closed for the summer. Her claim for unemployment benefits was denied by a claims deputy and an appeals deputy of the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (Commission) and she appealed to the Commission, which found as fact:\n1. Claimant last worked on June 7, 1977, as a teacher for The Charlotte Area Fund Headstart Project. The school ceased operations on that day for the summer months. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits as of June 5, 1977, and the claim was continued through June 25, 1977.\n2. Claimant has worked for The Charlotte Area Fund Headstart Project for six years. The project operates on a nine-month basis. Each year the Headstart Project has been operating on a nine-month basis the program has been refunded for the following year. Claimant has been recalled to her job for each of these school years.\n3. The Headstart Program involves kindergarten level instruction for the children who attend.\nThe Commission concluded that petitioner was unavailable for work within the meaning of G.S. 96-13(a)(3) because Project Headstart falls within the statutory definition of a secondary school and petitioner has at least an implied contract to return to work there each fall.\nPetitioner appealed to Superior Court, and the court concluded that the Commission had erred in applying G.S. 96-13(a)(3), as Project Headstart is not a secondary school.\nThe decision of the Commission was reversed, and the Commission appeals.\nDonald S. Gillespie, Jr., for petitioner appellee.\nHoward G. Doyle, Garland D. Crenshaw, V. Henry Gransee, Jr. and Gail C. Arneke for respondent appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 29,
  "last_page_order": 32
}