Krupa v. Murray

Decision Date09 May 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-67-M,88-67-M
Citation557 A.2d 868
Parties53 Ed. Law Rep. 548 Mary Y. KRUPA et al. v. Henry F. MURRAY, Jr. et al. P.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court
OPINION

WEISBERGER, Justice.

This case comes before us on a petition for certiorari filed by employees of the Woonsocket School Department in order to review a judgment of the District Court for the Sixth Division that upheld a majority decision of the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security denying unemployment compensation to Mary Y. Krupa, Gladys Foresti, and Jane S. Murray (employees). We affirm the judgment of the District Court. The facts of the case as found by the referee who first heard the case are as follows.

The employees were employed since 1979 by the Woonsocket School Department where they worked as teachers' aides. For most of that period employees had been employed for a fifty-two-week period. Each employee was laid off for the first time during the 1984 summer recess. Thereafter, each employee returned to work at the beginning of the 1984-85 school year. Each employee was then laid off for the 1985 summer recess but had the assurance that she would be recalled for work for the 1985-86 school year. The issue presented by the claims for unemployment compensation was whether employees were barred from receiving said compensation for unemployment during the 1985 summer recess as a result of the provisions of G.L.1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-44-68(2)(A), as amended by P.L.1984, ch. 10, § 1, which provides that an employee of an educational institution shall not be entitled to unemployment compensation

"(2) With respect to services in any other capacity for an educational institution (including elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education)

(a) Compensation payable for weeks of unemployment beginning on or after April 1, 1984, on the basis of such services shall be denied to any individual for any week which commences during a period between two (2) 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 * * * ." (Emphasis added.)

Although the member of the board of review who represented labor dissented from the denial of unemployment compensation on the ground that these employees were fifty-two-week employees as opposed to those who are employed for only a portion of the year, it is apparent from reading the statute that no exception is made based upon the number of weeks for which an employee of an educational institution...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Whitehouse v. Rumford Property and Liability Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1995
    ...It is well settled that when a statute has a plain, clear, and unambiguous meaning, no interpretation is required. Krupa v. Murray, 557 A.2d 868, 869 (R.I.1989). It is the conclusion of this court that the language of § 27-34-8(a)(1)(iii) is plain and unambiguous. The subsection clearly sta......
  • Bassi v. Rhode Island Insurers' Insolvency Fund
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1995
    ...and unambiguous meaning, no interpretation is required. Vector Health Systems v. Revens, 643 A.2d 795, 797-98 (R.I.1994); Krupa v. Murray, 557 A.2d 868, 869 (R.I.1989). In the instant case the intended meaning of the act is clear from its language. Furthermore, although the Legislature has ......
  • Baker v. Department of Employment and Training Bd. of Review
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1994
    ...work." Id. The determination of reasonable assurance is left to the board after it examines all relevant facts. Id. See Krupa v. Murray, 557 A.2d 868, 869 (R.I.1989). The conclusion in this case, then, and in others like it, must rest on a fact-specific The District Court concluded that the......
  • Auto Body Association of Rhode Island v. State of Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation, C.A. No. PC 07-6484 (R.I. Super 8/13/2008)
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Superior Court
    • August 13, 2008
    ...and the court is bound to construe the statute in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning set forth therein." Krupa v. Murray, 557 A.2d 868, 869 (R.I. 1989); see also Roadway Express, Inc. v. Rhode Island Comm'n for Human Rights, 416 A.2d 673, 674 (R.I. 1980) ("Words used in a statut......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT