Thomas v. Dept. of Labor

• Decision Date: 21 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 1475 September Term, 2005.,1475 September Term, 2005.
• Citation: 908 A.2d 99,170 Md. App. 650
• Parties: Jeanine Agnes THOMAS and Luann Sudbrook v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING, AND REGULATION and Board of Education of Baltimore County.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

908 A.2d 99

170 Md. App. 650

Jeanine Agnes THOMAS and Luann Sudbrook v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING, AND REGULATION and Board of Education of Baltimore County.

No. 1475 September Term, 2005.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

September 21, 2006.

Jack B. Gohn (Ghone, Hankey & Stichel, L.L.P., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellants.

Margaret-Ann F. Howie, Towson, MD and Gina Serra, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Panel: KENNEY, ADKINS and KRAUSER, JJ.

KENNEY, Judge.

The Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation denied the separate claims of Jeanine Thomas and Luanne Sudbrook (collectively, "appellants"), for unemployment benefits, concluding that appellants were ineligible under Maryland Code (1991, 1999 Repl. Vol.), § 8-909 of the Labor and Employment Article ("L.E."). The Circuit Court for Baltimore County consolidated appellants' petitions for judicial review, and affirmed the denial of benefits. Appellants present two questions for our review, which we have slightly reworded as follows:

I. Are school bus drivers employed by a county board of education, who have worked for the first of two consecutive academic years or terms and who have a reasonable assurance of performing such work in the forthcoming academic year or term, employed by an "educational institution," thereby rendering them ineligible for benefits for unemployment occurring between the successive academic years or terms under L.E. § 8-909?

II. Does L.E. § 8-909 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights by unlawfully discriminating between those school bus drivers employed by the Maryland public school system and those drivers servicing public schools but employed by private contractors?

For the following reasons, we answer "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second. Therefore, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Labor and Employment § 8-909 governs unemployment benefits payable to employees of governmental, charitable, educational, and religious organizations and provides, in pertinent part:

(a) In general. — Subject to the provisions of this section, benefits based on service in covered employment under §§ 8-208(a) and 8-212(c) of this title shall be payable in the same amount, on the same terms, and subject to the same conditions as benefits payable on the basis of other service in covered employment.

* * *

(c) Same — Services performed in other capacities. — (1) With respect to services performed for an educational institution in any capacity other than instructional, research, or principal administrative, benefits may not be paid on the basis of the services for any week of unemployment that begins during a period between 2 successive academic years or terms.

(2) This subsection applies to any individual who: (i) performs the services described in this subsection in the first of 2 academic years or terms; and (ii) has a reasonable assurance that the individual will perform the services in the second of the 2 successive academic years or terms; and

(ii) has a reasonable assurance that the individual will perform the services in the second of the 2 successive academic years or terms.

(3) Before July 1 of each year, each educational institution shall provide the Department with the name and Social Security number of each individual who has a reasonable assurance of performing covered employment described under this subsection in the next academic year.

(4) If an individual whose name and Social Security number are required to be submitted to the Department under paragraph (3) of this subsection is not given an opportunity to perform the services for the educational institution for the next successive year or term, the individual shall be eligible for benefits retroactively if the individual:

(i) files a timely claim for each week;

(ii) was denied benefits solely under this subsection; and

(iii) is otherwise eligible for benefits. (d) Same — Vacations and holidays. — (1) With respect to services described in subsections (b) and (c) of this section an individual may not be eligible for benefits based on the services for any week that begins during an established and customary vacation period or holiday recess.

(2) This subsection applies to any individual who:

(i) performs the services in the period immediately before the vacation period or holiday recess; and

(ii) has a reasonable assurance that the individual will perform the services in the period immediately following the vacation period or holiday recess.

(e) Educational service agencies. — (1) In this subsection, "educational service agency" means a governmental entity that is established and operated exclusively to provide educational service to one or more educational institutions.

(2) If any service described in subsection (b) and (c) of this section is performed by an individual in an educational institution while in the employ of an educational service agency, the individual is subject to subsections (b), (c), and subsection (d) of this section and benefits may not be paid if not allowed under subsection (b), (c), or (d) of this section.

(f) Services on behalf of educational institutions. — If any service described in subsection (a) of this section is provided by an individual to or on behalf of an educational institution, the individual is subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section and benefits may not be paid if not allowed under subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section.

"Educational institution" is defined as "an institution that offers participants, students, or trainees an organized course of study or training that is academic, technical, trade-oriented, or preparatory for gainful employment in a recognized occupation" and includes "an institution of higher education." L.E. § 8-101(n).

Both Thomas and Sudbrook were employed as school bus drivers by the Baltimore County Board of Education ("the Board") for the 2003-04 academic year, essentially on a ten-month basis. At the end of the academic year, Thomas and Sudbrook were each mailed a letter regarding their continued employment with the Board and requesting their route preferences for the next academic term. Appellants both responded to that letter, indicating their desire to return to work the following term and to retain their same respective routes as the prior academic year.

A. Jeanine Thomas

Thomas's last day of work was June 17, 2004, the last day of the regular academic term. On July 25, 2004, she filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation ("the Department"), claiming that she was temporarily laid-off from work for ten weeks or less. Her claim was denied by a Claims Specialist from the Department on August 16, 2004, because, as an employee of an educational institution under L.E. § 8-909(c) and having obtained a reasonable assurance of performing covered employment in the next academic term, she was ineligible for benefits. Thomas appealed to a Hearing Examiner, and a hearing on her claim was held on September 15, 2004. The Hearing Examiner denied Thomas's claim, finding her ineligible under L.E. § 8-909(c). When Thomas appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the Board of Appeals of the Department, the Board of Appeals adopted the Hearing Examiner's findings and recommendations. Afterwards, Thomas petitioned for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

B. Luann Sudbrook.

Following the conclusion of the 2003-2004 regular academic year, the Board afforded Sudbrook work as a private contractor during the summer of 2004. Her final day of employment was July 30, 2004, and, on August 11, 2004, she filed a claim for unemployment benefits. A Department Claims specialist determined that L.E. § 8-909(c) applied to Sudbrook's claim and denied her benefits. In a hearing before the Hearing Examiner, Sudbrook argued that L.E. § 8-909(c) unfairly discriminated against her because school bus drivers employed by private contractors were eligible for benefits during the break between academic terms, while those drivers employed by the Board were not. Unpersuaded, the Hearing Examiner denied Sudbrook's claim on September 19, 2004. When the Board of Appeals adopted the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner, Sudbrook petitioned the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for judicial review. Her case was consolidated with Thomas's petition.

C. Proceedings in the Circuit Court.

Following a hearing, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the Board of Appeals. It found that both Thomas and Sudbrook were ineligible for benefits under L.E. § 8-909(c). This timely appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of judicial review of a decision of the Board of Appeals is governed by L.E. § 8-512(d), which provides:

(d) Scope of Review. — In a judicial proceeding under this section, findings of fact of the Board of Appeals are conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court is confined to questions of law if:

(1) the findings of fact are supported by evidence that is competent, material, and substantial in view of the entire record; and

(2) there is no fraud.

"Under this statute, the reviewing court shall determine only: `(1) the legality of the decision and (2) whether there was substantial evidence from the record as a whole to support the decision.'" Department of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation v. Hider, 349 Md. 71, 77-78, 706 A.2d 1073 (1998) (quoting Baltimore Lutheran High Sch. Ass'n v. Employment Sec. Admin., 302 Md. 649, 662, 490 A.2d 701 (1985)). We "`may not reject a decision of the Board supported by substantial evidence unless that decision is wrong as a matter of law.'" Hernandez v. Dep't of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 122 Md. App. 19, 23, 711 A.2d 243 (1998) (quoting Hider, 349 Md. at 78, 706 A.2d 1073). "The test...