Appeal of Stewart, 164 N.H. 772

Stewart was code enforcement director for the City of Laconia from March 14 to June 29, 2011.
After termination, Stewart applied for unemployment benefits; DES denied based on base period earnings.
Tribunal upheld the denial, finding insufficient quarterly earnings under RSA 282-A:25 due to low third-quarter wages ($1,057.70) and high fourth-quarter wages ($16,605.90).
Stewart argued the April 1, 2011 paycheck (for March 21–27, 2011) should count in the third quarter.
The last day of the third quarter was March 31, 2011; DES relied on Tennis (date of receipt) to determine earnings.
Court vacates and remands, interpreting RSA 282-A:25 to count wages paid for services performed in a quarter, including the April 1 paycheck for March services.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 282-A:25 uses date of receipt or services performed to determine earnings	Stewart: earnings accrue when services are performed, not when paid	DES: Tennis controls; date of receipt governs earnings	Statutory interpretation de novo; earnings include wages paid or payable for services performed; date of receipt applies only where discretion exists
Whether the April 1, 2011 paycheck should be included in the third-quarter earnings	Paycheck for March work should count toward third-quarter earnings	Tennis limits earnings to the quarter in which received if not based on services performed in that quarter	In this case, include the April 1 paycheck in third-quarter earnings; erroneous reliance on Tennis corrected on remand
Whether the case should be vacated and remanded for proper calculation	Court should correct erroneous interpretation and recompute	Remand unnecessary if interpretation correct	Vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with statutory interpretation

Appeal of Tennis, 149 N.H. 91 (2003) (date of receipt governs RSA 282-A:25; not precluding consideration of timing when services performed in different quarters)
Bond v. Martineau, 164 N.H. 210 (2012) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning governs when unambiguous)
Appeal of Aspen Contracting NE, 164 N.H. 88 (2012) (purpose of RSA chapter 282-A; avoid absurd results; interpret to further unemployment goals)
Appeal of Gallant, 125 N.H. 832 (1984) (avoid interpretations that deny unemployment benefits to faultless claimants)
Gray v. Kelly, 161 N.H. 160 (2010) (statutes construed to avoid absurd or unjust results)
State v. Wamala, 158 N.H. 583 (2009) (constitutional statutory interpretation approach)