DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS MS
MS-39 (01/11)
HELD: Section 612 of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that an individual will be ineligible between terms if there is a
reasonable assurance that he will perform work for any educational institution in the upcoming term.
Section 612 makes no distinction between full-time and part-time teachers. Section 612 refers to "any" educational institution and
is not limited to consideration of work at one particular institution. Further, whether there is a reasonable assurance depends upon
facts as well as representations.
The claimant, even though he was a part-time teacher, was subject to Section 612. The facts showed that, despite the lack of
guaranteed work, he had always been able to obtain work during fall terms, at one educational institution or another. Therefore, he
had a reasonable assurance of working the next fall.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Miscellaneous/410.05
DOCKET/DATE Marzano v. IDES, 339 Ill. App. 3d 858 (1st Dist. 2003)
AUTHORITY Section 612 of the Act
TITLE Seasonal Employment
SUBTITLE Academic Employment
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimant was employed as a substitute teacher with the employer school district. The claimant became a full-time teacher for
the 1999-2000 school year. At the end of the school year the claimant received a letter informing him that he would not be re-hired
as a full-time teacher for the 2000-01 school year, but in August, 2000, the claimant received a letter informing him the employer
was interested in his services as a substitute teacher for that school year. The claimant then performed services as a day-to-day, as-needed
substitute teacher for the 2000-01 school year, his last day of work being June 8, 2001. The claimant then filed a claim for
unemployment insurance benefits. However, in August, 2001, the claimant again received a letter from the employer informing
him it was interested in his services as a substitute teacher for the 2001-02 school year. The claimant responded that he wanted to
work for the employer as a substitute teacher. The hearings referee denied the claimant‟s claim under Section 612 of the Act
because the claimant had reasonable assurances of returning to work as a substitute teacher in the fall of 2001. This decision was
affirmed by the Board of Review, and on administrative review by the circuit court.
HELD: Affirmed. Section 612 of the Act applies to day-to-day substitute teachers. The plain language of Section 612(B)(1) does
not distinguish between full-time and substitute teachers, but refers to individuals employed in an instructional capacity, a category
under which the claimant falls. Also, the claimant had reasonable assurances of future work as required by Section 612. The IDES
regulations regarding “reasonable assurance,” 56 Ill. Adm. Code Secs. 2915.1, 2915.20, as applied to the facts of this case, show
that the claimant had a reasonable assurance of future work as a substitute teacher for the 2001-02 school year based on the
previous conduct and practice between the claimant and the employer. In addition, the letter notifying the claimant that he no
longer would be employed as a full-time teacher does not constitute a letter of dismissal for the purposes of Section 612. After the
letter was issued, the claimant was employed by the employer as a substitute teacher, and the conduct and practice of the claimant
and employer regarding the claimant‟s employment as a substitute teacher was established.
