Cape Cod Collaborative v. Director of the Department of Unemployment Assistance
AC 15-P-436
Mass. App. Ct.May 4, 2017Background
- Stephanie Hennis, a full-time school bus driver for the Cape Cod Collaborative, normally worked ~45 hours per week (Mon–Fri) and received no holiday pay when school was not in session.
- During the week of Thanksgiving 2012 (week beginning Sunday Nov 18), schools were closed Wed–Fri; Hennis worked Mon–Tue only and was unpaid for Wed–Fri despite being available.
- Hennis applied for unemployment benefits for the week ending Nov 24, 2012; the Department approved partial benefits under G. L. c. 151A, § 29(b).
- The Collaborative appealed, arguing G. L. c. 151A, § 28A(c) bars benefits for any week that "commences during an established and customary vacation period or holiday recess" where the employee worked before and had reasonable assurance of returning after the recess.
- A review examiner and the Department’s board upheld benefits; the District Court reversed, applying § 28A(c) to deny benefits. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court and affirmed the board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hennis) | Defendant's Argument (Collaborative/Dept. position appealed to court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 28A(c) bars benefits for the week ending Nov 24, 2012 | § 28A(c) does not apply because the statutory "week" began Sunday Nov 18, before the Thanksgiving recess began on Wed Nov 21 | § 28A(c) bars benefits because employee performed services immediately before and had reasonable assurance of performing services after the recess | Held for Hennis: § 28A(c) bars only weeks that commence during a vacation/recess; this week began before the recess, so partial benefits are allowed |
| Whether Hennis met statutory definition of partial unemployment under § 1(r)(1) | Hennis earned less than her weekly benefit rate (after disregarded earnings) and thus was partially unemployed for that week | Collaborative argued (late) Mattapoisett precludes partial unemployment when hours fluctuate | Court did not consider late argument; indicated Hennis qualified as partially unemployed under the statutory scheme |
| Whether Massachusetts § 28A(c) must be read to conform to federal law interpretation | N/A (supports Hennis) | N/A (Collaborative’s broader reading risks nonconformity) | Court relied on federal analog (26 U.S.C. § 3304 and DOL guidance) to interpret § 28A(c) consistently with federal law |
| Proper standard of review for board’s statutory interpretation | Agency interpretation entitled to deference on policy details but court reviews legal questions de novo | N/A | Court reviewed legal issue de novo and found agency interpretation reasonable and consistent with statute and federal guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Connolly v. Director of the Div. of Unemployment Assistance, 460 Mass. 24 (statement of unemployment statute's purpose)
- LeBeau v. Commissioner of the Dept. of Employment & Training, 422 Mass. 533 (statutory construction in aid of unemployment benefits)
- Raytheon Co. v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 364 Mass. 593 (de novo review of legal questions in agency decisions)
- California Dept. of Human Resources Dev. v. Java, 402 U.S. 121 (federal-state unemployment program conformity)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (weight given to agency interpretations)
- Mattapoisett v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 392 Mass. 546 (discussed re: partial unemployment doctrine)
- North Penn School Dist. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 662 A.2d 1161 (analogous holding that a week beginning before a holiday period is not excluded)