Minick v Ann Arbor Public Schools
Digest no. 5.17
Cite as: Minick v Ann Arbor Pub Schools, Washtenaw Circuit Court, No. 90-39906 AE (April 30, 1991).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Timothy Minick
Employer: Ann Arbor Public Schools
Docket no.: B89-10215-113204W
Date of decision: April 30, 1991
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: A school district claimant may be subject to the school denial period even if employed at a non-school location if his or her employment is linked to the academic year.
FACTS: Claimant was employed as a “library community assistant” by the Ann Arbor Community Schools. He enforced rules of behavior at the Ann Arbor Public Library which was operated by the school district. His contract provided he would work a maximum of 191 days, from the start of the school year until its conclusion. On May 22, 1989, the claimant was informed his last day of service would be May 31, 1989, and that he would be re-employed in the fall with his first day to be determined. He returned to work on September 1, 1989.
Claimant asserted he should not be subject to the school denial period. He argued the denial period had been expanded into an area not contemplated by the legislature — a public library system serving the public at large on a year-round basis. He further argued his services were in no way linked to the academic cycle. He contended Section 27(i) was intended to be applied to personnel whose services were linked to the academic year.
DECISION: The claimant was subject to the school denial period of the MES Act, Section 27(i).
RATIONALE: The court found a link existed between the claimant’s job and the academic year. The record indicated the need for library security coincided with the library’s use by students during the school year. The court also found that the claimant’s job category fell within the provisions of Section 27(i)(2) and that he was given reasonable assurance as he was informed his job would again be available in the fall.
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99