SCH NO 1 A CASCADE COUNTY v
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 84-550 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 and A, CASCADE COUNTY, Petitioner and Respondent, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and INDUSTRY, GAIL HAHN, TERRY THOMPSON, et a1 , Respondents and Appellants. . APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Hilley & Loring, Great Falls, Nontana James Gardner, Dept. of Labor & Industry, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Waite, Schuster & Larson, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: $A I. f 1985 March 7, 1985 July 11, 1985 Mr. Justice L. C. Gulbrandson delivered the Opinion of the Court. Appellants appeal an order of the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, denying their motion for summary judgment, granting the School District's motion for summary judgment and finding appellants ineligible for unemployment compensation during the summer of 1981. We affirm. The School District planned a district-wide reduction in its teaching staff in the spring of 1981. It notified the six individual appellants in March, 1981 that their teaching contracts would not be renewed for the 1981-1982 school year. Each of the appellants immediately challenged the non-renewal either through the grievance procedure in their collective bargaining agreement or in a proceeding before the Cascade County Superintendent of section 20-4-204, MCA. Schools using the procedure in Eventually all six appellants were reinstated with back-pay, the right to full advancement on the salary schedule and no loss of seniority, tenure rights or benefits as a result of their challenge. expended Those who funds looking for other teaching positions during the summer, were reimbursed for those costs by the School District if they requested it. The appellants individually applied compensation during the summer of 1981. for unemployment They were eligible for and received benefits at that time pursuant to section 39-51-2108, MCA. This dispute concerns repayment of the benefits received during those months. Gail Hahn was rehired by the School District, on a part-time basis, on August 25, 1981 and became a full-time teacher. three weeks later, She stopped drawing unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n when September 21, 1981 compensation. on rehired. Terry and Thompson stopped was drawing rehired unemployment Howard Hahn was r e h i r e d on a p a r t - t i m e August 22, 1981, and became compensation, stopped drawing basis unemployment t w o weeks full-time later. John Chase was r e h i r e d by t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t i n l a t e J u l y , on a part-time basis and f i l e d no c l a i m s c o m p e n s a t i o n a f t e r J u l y 25, 1981. February o f 1982. on 1981 f o r unemployment J a n i s Storm was r e h i r e d i n A f t e r h e r r e t u r n an a r b i t r a t o r ruled she had b e e n t e r m i n a t e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t and o r d e r e d repaid after reinstatement and back-pay. She h a s t o t h e S t a t e t h e unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n August back-pay. 26, Carl 1981, the Rosenleaf period f o r which she s h e drew received was t h e o n l y o n e o f t h e s i x n o t r e c a l l e d v o l u n t a r i l y by t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t . On March 3 1 , 1982 an a r b i t r a t o r o r d e r e d h i s r e i n s t a t e m e n t w i t h b a c k pay t o August 26, 1981. H e h a s r e p a i d t h e S t a t e t h e unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n r e c e i v e d s i n c e August 2 6 , which h e r e c e i v e d back-pay. the five teachers, 1981, t h e p e r i o d f o r When t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t r e h i r e d except Rosenleaf, t h e y w e r e k e p t on t h e School D i s t r i c t ' s p a y r o l l w i t h t h e i r o r i g i n a l d a t e s o f h i r e . Rosenleaf, reinstated by the arbitrator, also has his o r i g i n a l d a t e of h i r e . I n O c t o b e r 1 9 8 2 , t h e Unemployment I n s u r a n c e D i v i s i o n o f Montana ' s appellants Department that all of Labor and unemployment Industry compensation r e p a i d d u e t o t h e i r r e i n s t a t e m e n t s and back-pay six appellants challenged the notified demand. There should awards. was be All also q u e s t i o n on w h e t h e r G a i l Hahn and J a n i s Storm t i m e l y t h e i r r e q u e s t f o r review. the a filed After that review, the Appeals Referee determined that five of the appellants did not have to repay the summer unemployment compensation. The Referee also ruled that since Janis Storm had not filed a timely appeal, the determination as to her overpaid benefits would stand. Appeals affirmed the Referee's The Board of Labor decision that the five teachers would not have to repay the summer benefits and reversed the decision regarding Janis Storm. The Board concluded that the untimeliness of her appeal was immaterial and excusable under the circumstances and ruled that none of the appellants had to repay the summer unemployment compensation they had received. The School District appealed to the District Court which reversed the decision of the Board of Labor Appeals. Appellants and the School District agreed that there were no facts in dispute and made motions for summary judgment. In a memorandum decision and order filed November 15, 1984, the District Court ruled that, as a matter of law, the six teachers were ineligible for unemployment compensation during the summer of 1981 in accordance with the statutory provisions of section 39-51-2108, MCA. The District Court also the noted that this ruling rendered issue of the timeliness of the appeal of two teachers moot. The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in concluding that the six appellants had to repay the unemployment compensation they received during the summer of 1981. Section 39-51-2108, MCA provides that benefits to teachers "may not be paid to an individual for any week of unemployment which successive academic begins years during . . . if the the period between individual two has a contract such t o perform educational .. years. s e r v i c e s i n any s u c h c a p a c i t y institution for such academic " a t t h e t i m e they received The a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t , benefits, both f o r any t h e y d i d n o t h a v e a renewed t e a c h i n g c o n t r a c t f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r and t h u s w e r e e l i g i b l e f o r t h o s e b e n e f i t s . The School contends District that appellants were fully r e i n s t a t e d and w e r e i n e x a c t l y t h e same s t a t u s a s i f r e n e w a l c o n t r a c t s had Thus, been offered were appellants compensation. appelLants The were t o them i n the ineligible District School eligible spring of for does unemployment not for the benefits considerations in this 1981. dispute when that received d u r i n g t h e summer o f 1981. The main case concern the d i f f e r e n c e between " r e h i r e d " and " r e i n s t a t e d " and w h e t h e r t h e f a c t s a r e viewed o n l y from t h e p o i n t i n t i m e o f t h e s p r i n g o f 1.981 o r a r e viewed from t h e t i m e o f t h e h e a r i n g . Teachers i n t h e School D i s t r i c t have been r e h i r e d o r v o l u n t a r i l y r e c a l l e d after termination at o t h e r times and w e r e n o t required to r e p a y unemployment b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d d u r i n g t h e t i m e o f t h e i r The a p p e l l a n t s h e r e w e r e r e i n s t a t e d and made unemployment. whole w i t h no l o s s o f wages, s e n i o r i t y , t e n u r e r i g h t s o r any u n l i k e t e a c h e r s who w e r e r e h i r e d . other benefits, The f u l l r e i n s t a t e m e n t of a p p e l l a n t s p u t them i n t h e same p o s i t i o n a s i f t h e y had c o n t r a c t s i n March 1 9 8 1 f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r . This amounts reinstatement termination services more relates and ... 39-51-2108, to merely back, appellants for MCA. than both in effect, " [have! such being a academic rehired. to time contract years." to The of the perform Section Section 39-51-2108, continuing contract determining whether unemployment statutes hold status he that or benefits. if rather that t h e claimant has a the teacher's earnings eligible in for summer interpreting courts status on than is she Other a l s o recognize focuses MCA similar is controlling. reasonable They assurance o r a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f r e t u r n i n g t o work a f t e r t h e b r e a k between two terms, academic b e n e f i t s w i l l be denied. is not a factor. (0r.App. Division Review unemployment R e c e i p t o f wages d u r i n g t h e b r e a k See, e.g., Friedlander 1 9 8 4 ) , 6 7 6 P.2d (N.J.App. compensation 1979), 409 314; A.2d v. Employment P a t r i c k v. 819; Board o f and Davis Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board o f Review 1978), 394 regained lost. A.2d the 1320. With continuing contract reinstatement, v. (Pa. appellants s t a t u s t h e y had initially T h e i r s t a t u s i s t h e same a s i f t h e c o n t r a c t s had been renewed i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1 9 8 1 and t h e y had r e c e i v e d no summer wages a s a r e s u l t of t h a t s t a t u s . Thus a p p e l l a n t s ' argument t h a t t h e y s h o u l d n o t have t o r e p a y t h e summer unemployment b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e no back-pay was a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h o s e months must f a i l . W e recognize cited above. t h a t the case a t bar d i f f e r s appellants Here, were eligible from t h o s e when they i n i t i a l l y s o u g h t b e n e f i t s and s u b s e q u e n t e v e n t s a f f e c t e d t h a t initial eligibility. However, a p p e l l a n t s a r e p r e c l u d e d from arguing t h a t subsequent e v e n t s never a f f e c t e l i g i b i l i t y f o r unemployment benefits. benefits part for of Those the fall appellants 1981 who academic received term required t o repay o r v o l u n t a r i l y repaid t h e p o r t i o n of benefits received for that term, even though eligible f o r t h o s e b e n e f i t s when r e c e i v e d . they were the were The s u b s e q u e n t reinstatement affected their fall eligibility and appellants cannot argue the subsequent reinstatement could not affect their summer eligibility. We therefore hold that the District Court correctly interpreted section 39-51-2108, MCA and correctly required that the six individual appellants must repay unemployment compensation received for the summer of 1981 and affirm the ruling of the District Court. We concur: Justices 7 M.r. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr, dissenting: T dissent and would reverse. Section 39-51-2108, MCA, states that benefits may not be paid during the period between successive academic years if the individual has a contract for both years. The important part of this statute that applies here is "if the individual has a contract for both years." The individuals had no contract for both years. They had been advised that their contracts would not be renewed for the following year. Because they had no contract they were properly eligible and properly paid benefits during the period. The majority now holds that these proper payments are "improper" because subsequent reinstatement relates back. The individuals are, therefore, to be placed in the same position as if they had contracts for both years. I disagree. The benefits were properly paid and they cannot now be made to be improper. No contract existed for the required "both years" during the relevant period and it cannot now be made to exist. Whether the individuals here were "re-hired" or "reinstated,'I or whether the contracts were "renewed," it i.s inescapable that no contract existed during the period in which benefits were paid. Absent an existing contract for the requisite "both years," apply $ 39-51-2108 simply does not to prohibit payment of benefits and it cannot be applied to require the individuals to now reimburse for the benefits properly paid.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
