{ "id": 1598927, "name": "Ramona ORTIZ, Mary Torivio and Elizabeth Garcia, Petitioners-Appellants, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Sky City Community School, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Ortiz v. New Mexico Employment Security Department", "decision_date": "1986-12-30", "docket_number": "No. 9071", "first_page": "313", "last_page": "316", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "105 N.M. 313" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "731 P.2d 1357" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "397 A.2d 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Pa. Commw. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Commw.", "case_ids": [ 1893626 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-commw/40/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "639 F.2d 353", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1361572 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/639/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Or.App. 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or. App.", "case_ids": [ 4370167 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519" }, { "page": "351" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or-app/65/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Or.App. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or. App.", "case_ids": [ 4371283 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553", "parenthetical": "quoting Zeek v. Employment Division, 65 Or.App. 515, 519, 672 P.2d 349, 351 (1983)" }, { "page": "318", "parenthetical": "quoting Zeek v. Employment Division, 65 Or.App. 515, 519, 672 P.2d 349, 351 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or-app/66/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Wis.2d 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8674741 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488-89" }, { "page": "539" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis-2d/115/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.M. 3", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2803921 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14" }, { "page": "862-63" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/74/0003-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 N.M. 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1555112 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/97/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 N.M. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1586378 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/101/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 N.M. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1586346 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/101/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 U.S.C. \u00a7 8502", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 542, "char_count": 9331, "ocr_confidence": 0.784, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.112724912833455e-08, "percentile": 0.4270978732736928 }, "sha256": "af01b97b70b01d0dd953bdbd393a64d98df296a26765ff06d0f2960ccdbb1c28", "simhash": "1:be26cee4d5a654ca", "word_count": 1486 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:20:30.820213+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BIVINS and MINZNER, JJ\u201e concur." ], "parties": [ "Ramona ORTIZ, Mary Torivio and Elizabeth Garcia, Petitioners-Appellants, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Sky City Community School, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSANDRA A. GRISHAM, District Judge, by Order of Designation.\nRamona Ortiz, Mary Torivio, and Elizabeth Garcia (claimants) appeal from the district court\u2019s affirmance of the denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the New Mexico Employment Security Department (ESD). Claimants were employed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as educational aides at the Sky City Community School for the 1983-1984 school year, and had been similarly employed since the early 1970\u2019s.\nIn prior years, claimants had been \u201cfurloughed\u201d in the summer from approximately one week after school let out to one week before it reconvened, and had established a practice of collecting unemployment compensation for the ten weeks they were off in the summer.\nIn June of 1984, claimants were laid off earlier than usual and were told to report back October 1, 1984, the reason given for the longer furloughs being budget cuts.\nThe Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. Sections 3301 to 3311 (1976) provides that employees of educational institutions are ineligible for unemployment benefits for:\n[A]ny week which commences during a period between two successive academic years or terms if such individual performs such services in the first of such academic years or terms and there is a reasonable assurance that such individual will perform such services in the second of such academic years or terms * * *.\n26 U.S.C. 3304(a)(6)(A)(ii).\nCongress mandated that this language is to be included in state law (26 U.S.C. Section 3304(a)(6)(A)), and it is found substantially unchanged at NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-5(C)(2) (Cum.Supp.1986). The state administers federal employees\u2019 claims for unemployment benefits. 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 8502(b) (1976).\nRelying on Section 51-1-5(C)(2) and (4), ESD denied the claims in this case on the ground that the \u201cbetween terms\u201d section applied, and the district court affirmed that decision.\nClaimants raise three issues: first, granting benefits would accomplish New Mexico public policy; second, there was no \u201creasonable assurance of reemployment\u201d; and third, the period of unemployment was not \u201cbetween two successive academic years or terms.\u201d These are matters of first impression under New Mexico law.\nIn appeals from administrative decisions, the reviewing court must decide whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Duke City Lumber Co. v. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, 101 N.M. 291, 681 P.2d 717 (1984). The appellate court must make the same review of the determination as the district court. Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. New Mexico State Corporation Commission, 101 N.M. 470, 684 P.2d 1135 (1984). Although the reviewing court generally may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative decision-maker, it may correct a misapplication of the law. Conwell v. City of Albuquerque, 97 N.M. 136, 637 P.2d 567 (1981).\nI. PUBLIC POLICY.\nClaimants argue public policy requires a liberal construction, and indeed, the supreme court \u201cis clearly committed to a liberal interpretation of our unemployment compensation act, so as to provide sustenance to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own and who are willing and ready to work if given the opportunity.\u201d Wilson v. Employment Security Commission, 74 N.M. 3, 14, 389 P.2d 855, 862-63 (1963). This policy, however, has been refined by the limitations of Section 51-1-5(C)(2), and as enunciated by another jurisdiction, \u201cthe intent of the limited disqualification * * * is to prevent subsidized summer vacations for those teachers who are employed during one academic year and who are reasonably assured of resuming their employment the following year.\u201d Leissring v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations, 115 Wis.2d 475, 488-89, 340 N.W.2d 533, 539 (1983).\nDenying claimants\u2019 benefits for between-term unemployment with reasonable assurance of reemployment is consistent with public policy.\nII. REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF REEMPLOYMENT.\nClaimants first argue that as a matter of law there was no reasonable assurance because they were told to report back to work on October 1, 1984, which was not when the next academic school year began. The statute reads that the reemployment must be in the second of such academic years or terms, not that it must commence at the beginning of the term. October 1, 1984 was in the second year, and claimants\u2019 argument here fails under the clear language of the statute.\nClaimants next argue that they were not given a reasonable assurance that they were going to be reemployed on October 1, 1984. \u201cReasonable assurance\u201d is defined in Section 51-1-5(0(5) to mean:\n[A] reasonable expectation of employment in a similar capacity in the second of such academic years or terms based upon a consideration of all relevant factors, including the historical pattern of reemployment in such capacity, a reasonable anticipation that such employment will be available and a reasonable notice or understanding that the individual will be eligible for and offered employment in a similar capacity.\nClaimants allege that reasonable assurance was lacking because of the uncertainty of funding; however, another jurisdiction has found that \u201c \u2018an assurance of public employment is reasonable even if it is subject to the availability of funds * * Friedlander v. Employment Division, 66 Or.App. 546, 553, 676 P.2d 314, 318 (1984) (quoting Zeek v. Employment Division, 65 Or.App. 515, 519, 672 P.2d 349, 351 (1983)).\nReviewing the record as a whole, it is clear that claimants fully anticipated reemployment on October 1, 1984, and in fact were so reemployed. Their expectation, based upon their historical pattern of reemployment and the fact that they were told to return to work on October 1, was reasonable. The complaints below were centered on the past availability of unemployment benefits and the hardships created by the unexpected decision to apply the law limiting those benefits; claimants did not express genuine concerns below that they were not going to be rehired October 1. This point also fails.\nIII. CLAIMANTS\u2019 PERIOD OF UNEMPLOYMENT.\nClaimants finally, and much more compellingly, argue that they were not unemployed \u201cbetween two successive academic years or terms.\u201d Although the record is not totally clear, there is substantial evidence to support the district court\u2019s finding that the claimants were laid off work between June 1, 1984 and October 1, 1984. However, the record as a whole does not support that portion of the finding classifying this period as \u201cthe summer period.\u201d In our view, a portion of the period must be deemed a time of unemployment within the meaning of state law, because Congress did not intend to exclude such a period from benefits. See Chicago Teachers Union v. Johnson, 639 F.2d 353 (7th Cir.1980).\nAgain, there is no New Mexico case law on point, but other jurisdictions have given \u201cacademic year\u201d its usual and normal meaning of fall through spring, even where the teachers and students did not report for school. McKeesport Area School District v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commw. 334, 397 A.2d 458 (1979); Chicago Teachers Union v. Johnson.\nIn the instant case, school itself closed and opened as usual, but the claimants, accustomed to furloughs of ten weeks between a week after students left to a week after they returned, were instead furloughed for seventeen weeks. It would take a tortured interpretation of \u201cbetween terms\u201d to include those extra seven weeks.\nChicago Teachers Union and McKeesport are specifically on point. They both involve situations where the school district claimed its \u201cacademic year\u201d was simply shortened due to lack of funds in the former and to labor problems in the latter. The courts in both instances allowed the limitation of benefits for the usual summer break only, and granted unemployment benefits for the remaining weeks.\nHere, we can do no less, especially in light of the fact that the 1984-1985 school year commenced as usual. Claimants are entitled to benefits for the weeks of unemployment that did not fall between the ordinary terms of employment. To conclude otherwise would result in any school district being able to avoid payment of unemployment compensation to any employee, so long as that employee was hired and paid even for one day of work in the succeeding school year.\nCONCLUSION.\nThe decision of the district court is affirmed as to denial of benefits for ten weeks, and is reversed as to denial of benefits for the extra weeks. The cause is remanded with instructions to the district court to determine the amount of weekly benefits due to claimants for the weeks in question and to enter judgment consistent herewith.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nBIVINS and MINZNER, JJ\u201e concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SANDRA A. GRISHAM, District Judge, by Order of Designation." } ], "attorneys": [ "Joel Jasperse, Northern New Mexico Legal Services, Inc., Gallup, for petitioners-appellants.", "Paul G. Bardacke, Atty. Gen., Richard Baumgartner, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. for the New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept., Albuquerque, for respondents-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "731 P.2d 1357\nRamona ORTIZ, Mary Torivio and Elizabeth Garcia, Petitioners-Appellants, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Sky City Community School, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Respondents-Appellees.\nNo. 9071.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nDec. 30, 1986.\nJoel Jasperse, Northern New Mexico Legal Services, Inc., Gallup, for petitioners-appellants.\nPaul G. Bardacke, Atty. Gen., Richard Baumgartner, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. for the New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept., Albuquerque, for respondents-appellees." }, "file_name": "0313-01", "first_page_order": 353, "last_page_order": 356 }