Monday, December 24, 2007

Using Sybase technology, it was able to re-architect and re-implement the application, reducing both the size and frequency of client releases.

"Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."


Case Study
Texas Workforce Commission
The Texas Workforce Commission, a state agency that oversees workforce development programs, needed to overhaul its popular client/server application to keep up with growth in size and functionality. Using Sybase technology, it was able to re-architect and re-implement the application, reducing both the size and frequency of client releases.

Reader Feedback : Page 1 of 1
Add Your Feedback
Name
Email (optional)
Web/Blog URL
Comment (WIKI format)
Help us combat spam, by answering the following; 3 + 7 =

Leave your email if you want to be notified when someone else leaves a reply. No-one will see your email and you can unsubscribe anytime.

This is a preview of your comment:

Please wait while we process your feedback




Thank you for your feedback

Click here to reload this page
#1

news desk commented on the 29 Jul 2006

The Texas Workforce Commission, a state agency that oversees workforce development programs, needed to overhaul its popular client/server application to keep up with growth in size and functionality. Using Sybase technology, it was able to re-architect and re-implement the application, reducing both the size and frequency of client releases.


Subscribe to our RSS feeds now and receive the next article instantly!
In It? Reprint It! Contact advertising(at)sys-con.com to order your reprints!
YOUR FEEDBACK

PBDJ Blogger Chris Pollach Reaches 150,000 Reader Mark
By Chris Pollach
PBDJ News Desk wrote: I just wanted to acknowledge the tremendous increase in the amount of Blog activity that I have received over the past year. I think (and hope) that this is because many Sybase professionals out there have come to visit my site for latest information on ...

Sybase PowerBuilder and FTP
By Nathan E. Pralle
Declan Swayne wrote: Hi All, I am trying to incorporate this in to my Powerbuilder app. Instead of inserting the control I created a new one from it. ( due to a pb error on msvcrt.dll in PB ) I associated all properties to the ole in the open event. I then call the connect event...

XP Text Search Broken...
By Bruce Armstrong
Shaun wrote: Thank you very much!

Struts Portlets with AJAX in Action
By Kris Vishwanathan
Chrisf wrote: Hi, Can we get the source code for this article please? Thanks.

The Road Warrior's Mobile Arsenal Increases
By Ian Thain
Ian Thain wrote: Mobile Star: 10 Times Over Sybase has been named the winner of 10 Mobile Star Awards in MobileVillage's 2007 Mobile Readers Choice Awards program. The program honours the best companies, products, deployments and leaders in mobile and wireless technology. Pocke...
FEATURED WHITE PAPERS
PBDJ LATEST STORIES . . .
Why Do 'Cool Kids' Choose Ruby or PHP to Build Websites Instead of Java?
By Coach Wei
Here is a question that I have been pondering on and off for quite a while: Why do 'cool kids' choose Ruby or PHP to build websites instead of Java? I have to admit that I do not have an answer. Why do I even care? Because I am a Java developer. Like many Java developers, I get along w
Google Developer Summit to Take Place April 21-22, 2008 in New York City
By Google Developer News Desk
In keeping with the longstanding SYS-CON tradition of being at the very forefront of software development with all its online and offline resources, SYS-CON Media & Events jointly today announced a double Google-whammy, launching both 'Google Developer's Journal' (http://googledevelope
PBDJ Blogger Chris Pollach Reaches 150,000 Reader Mark
By Chris Pollach
I just wanted to acknowledge the tremendous increase in the amount of Blog activity that I have received over the past year. I think (and hope) that this is because many Sybase professionals out there have come to visit my site for latest information on the Sybase scene. Since I starte
Where Is AJAX Headed? Discussing the Future of the Rich Web
By Jeremy Geelan
I am always being told off by i-technologists for quoting Picasso as having said that computers are useless. But I still love his reasoning: 'Because they can only give you answers.' Picasso, like AJAXWorld Magazine, liked questions. So we thought we would share with you what some of t
Third International Virtualization Conference & Expo Call for Papers Open
By Virtualization News Desk
Key opinion-formers in the field of infrastructure and pioneers of virtualization technologies of all types have already begun submitting speaking proposals to Virtualization Conference & Expo 2008 East, being held in New York City, 23-24 June, 2008. Topics covered will range from Appl
All-New AJAX Security Bootcamp at AJAXWorld 2008 East in New York
By AJAXWorld News Desk
Being held for the first time on March 18, 2008 at the historic Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, AJAXWorld Security Bootcamp is a compelling, intensive, one-day, hands-on training program that will teach Web developers, Web designers, and other Web professionals how to build secure AJ
SUBSCRIBE TO THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL NEWSLETTERS
Receive Breaking i-Technology News as it Happens...
AJAX Newsletter
Java Newsletter
Open Source/Linux Newsletter
Microsoft .NET Newsletter
Flex Newsletter
Internet Video Newsletter
iPhone Newsletter
Silverlight Newsletter

SOA/Web Services Newsletter
Virtualization Newsletter
Web 2.0 Newsletter
ColdFusion Newsletter
PowerBuilder Newsletter
XML Newsletter
Eclipse Newsletter
Google Developer Newsletter
Your E-Mail:


State:


Zip Code:





Type the characters you see in this picture (lower case):

Help Wanted: SYS-CON Media is looking for i-technology reporters, and journalists. Please apply to reporters(at)sys-con.com.
We are also seeking online advertising sales representatives with proven track record. Please apply to careers(at)sys-con.com.



SPONSOR TEXT LINKS

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Texas Workforce commission ~AKA ~WIA~

"Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."


This is the html version of the file http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/ga/ga0281.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/custom?q=cache:C-fdUEA7nHoJ:www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/ga/ga0281.pdf+Del+mar+requests&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us&client=google-coop-np

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: del mar requests
Page 1
ATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
GREG
ABBOTT
December 13.2004
Mr. Lowry Mays, Chair
Board of Regents
The Texas A&M University System
Post Office Box C-l
College Station, Texas 77843
Opinion No. GA-0281
Re: Whether the Texas Workforce Commission
Civil Rights Division is properly interpreting the
equal employment opportunity training requirement
of Labor Code section 21.556(a) (RQ-0240-GA)
Dear Mr. Mays:
The Texas A&M University System (“TAMU”) asks whether the Texas Workforce
Commission
Civil Rights Division (the “Commission”)
is properly interpreting
the equal
employment opportunity training requirement ofLabor Code section 21.556(a).’
I.
Backmound
Chapter 21 of the Labor Code prohibits employment discrimination in Texas. Its general
purposes include providing for the execution of federal antidiscrimination laws and identifying and
creating a state authority to enforce federal antidiscrimination policies. See
TEX. LAB. CODE ANN.
$$ 21,001(l)-(2)
(Vernon 1996). To this end, chapter 21 establishes the Texas Workforce
Commission Civil Rights Division, formerly the Texas Commission on Human Rights: as the
agency that may enforce the chapter and adopt procedural rules to carry out its purposes and policies.
See
id.
$21.003(a)(Z), (7) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).
‘See Letter from Delmar L. Cain, General Counsel, The Texas A&M University System, to Honorable Greg
Abbon,Texas Attorney General (June 14,2004) [hereinaAerRequest Letter]; LetterattachedtoRequestLetterfromJohn
D. Moore, General Counsel, Texas Workforce Commission, to Delmar L. Cain, General Counsel, The Texas A&M
University System (June 7, 2004) [h ereinat?er Exhibit 11; Letter attached to Request Letter from Katherine A. Antwi,
General Counsel, Texas Commission on Human Rights, to W. Jan Faber, Assistant General Counsel, Tbe Texas A&M
University System (Aug. 20,2003) [hereinafter Exhibit 21 (Request Letter and Exhibits on file with Opinion Committee,
also available af http:Nuww.oag.state.tx.us).
2SeeT. LAB. CODEANN. 3 21.0015 (“The powers and duties exercised by the Commission onHummRights
under this chapter are transferred to the Texas Workforce Commission civil rights division. A reference in this chapter
to the ‘commission’ means the Texas Workforce Commission civil rights division.“); see also id 5s 301.151-,153
(Vernon Supp. 2004-05) (establishing the Civil Rights Division as an independent division in the Texas Workforce
Commission governed by the “human rights commission”).
Page 2
Mr. Lowry Mays - Page 2
(GA-0281)
Relevant to TAMU’s inquiry, chapter 21 outlines a formal process by which a person
claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice may tile a complaint with the
Commission and have that complaint reviewed to determine if there is reasonable cause to believe
that the employment practice was discriminatory. Seegenerally
id.
5s 21.201-,211 (Vernon 1996)
(subchapter E). Before the Commission will review a complaint, the complaint must meet certain
statutory requirements, which include providing the facts that establish the basis of the complaint.
See
id.
5 21.201. If the Commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that
discrimination has likely occurred, then the Commission will endeavor to eliminate the alleged
unlawful employment practice by informal dispute resolution methods. See
id.
5 21.207. Should
that fail, the Commission may tile a civil suit against the respondent, see
id.
3 21.25 1, or provide the
complainant with written notice of the complainant’s right to file a civil action, see
id. 5
21.252.
TAMU asks about section 21.556 of the Labor Code, which prescribes equal employment
opportunity training for state agencies that have received three or more employment discrimination
complaints within a fiscal year. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1; see also TEX. LAB. CODE
ANN. 5 21.556 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). The Commission is charged with adopting minimum
standards for a training program and must approve a person, entity, or state agency to provide
training so long as the program complies with the Commission’s standards. See TEX. LAB. CODE
ANN. 5 21.556(d) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Agencies required to participate in the training program
must pay the program’s costs or reimburse the Commission or state agency that provides the training
through interagency contract, See
id.
5 21.556(e). Ifthe Commission does not conduct the training
for a state agency, that state agency must provide the Commission with documentation of the
training. See
id. 4
21.556(c).
Specifically, TAMU inquires about section 21.556(a), which establishes the circumstances
under which a state agency must receive the required equal employment opportunity training:
A state agency that receives three or more complaints of employment
discrimination
in
a fiscal year,
other than complaints determined to
be without merit,
shall provide a comprehensive equal employment
opportunity
training program to appropriate
supervisory
and
managerial employees.
Id.
5 21.556(a) (emphasis added). Chapter 21 does not define the term “merit,“nor does it establish
a process for assessing whether a complaint is “without merit.” However, a Commission rule
establishes a process for assessing a complaint’s merit for this purpose, which provides in part:
(a) The Commission will make a determination if a complaint of
employment discrimination is with or without merit by analyzing
complaints filed by employees of state agencies or applicants for
employment with state agencies, with either the Commission or the
United
States Equal Employment
Opportunity
Commission
(“EEOC”), to ascertain whether the complainant has met his or her
burden of providing sufficient factual evidence to establish the
elements of a prima facie case of employment discrimination
as
Page 3
Mr. Lowry Mays - Page 3
(GA-0281)
delineated by the United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”).
If a complaint is determined to have met the elements of a prima facie
case, then the complaint will be administratively processed [through]
the Commission’s
or EEOC’s investigation procedures.
If the
Commission makes a determination that a complaint has met both a
Supreme Court [prima facie] test.
and an administrative processing
test of merit, a state agency will be determined to have a complaint of
merit assessed against them.
(b) If a complainant.
fails to meet his or her burden of establishing
the elements of aprima facie case as outlined by the Supreme Court,
is prevented from filing a complaint for jurisdictional reasons, or
provides self-defeating evidence on the face of his or her complaint
that shows the complaint is defective, then the complaint will not be
administratively processed nor determined to be with merit.
29 TEX. REG. 3653 (2004) (to be codified at 40 TEX.
ADMIN. CODE
5 819,18(a)-(b)) (the “Rule”).3
TAMU informs us that it has been notified by the Commission that it must provide equal
employment opportunity training because three or more complaints of employment discrimination
were tiled against TAMU during the 2004 fiscal year. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1; see
also TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 5 21.556(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).4 TAMU contends, however,
that the Commission’s
notification is baseless because the Commission’s test for determining
merit contravenes chapter 21. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. TAMU suggests that a
discrimination complaint triggers the section 21.556(a) trainingrequirement
onlyifthe Commission
has determined in the complaint review process outlined in chapter 21 that there is “reasonable
cause” to believe that discrimination has occurred. See
id.
at 6; see also TEX. LAB. CODE ANN.
$9 21.204-,206 (Vernon 1996). By contrast, the Commission maintains that the process for
determining a complaint’s merit for purposes of the training requirement is distinct from a finding
of reasonable cause.’ TAMU asks, essentially, which of the two interpretations is correct. See
Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. TAMU also questions the Commission’s interpretation of the
Rule. See
id.
at 5-6.
‘In
its letter,
TAMU
refers to section 323.8 as the rule in question. Section 323.8 was renumbered as section
819.18. See 29 TEX. REG. 3653 (2004) (to be codified at 40 TEX. ADMIN. CODE $819.18). We will refer to the rule by
its most recent codification.
?AMU notes: “The letter from the commission did not identify or provide any details concerning the
complaints.” Request Letter, supra note 1, at 8. Instead, the letter only identified the complaints as having been “tiled.”
See id We were not provided with a copy of this March letter, but we assume for the purposes of this opinion that the
Commission used “filed” as shorthand to describe complaints that had been filed and deemed meritorious by the
Commissionaccording to section21,556(a) and the Rule. Neither& Commissionnor TAMU suggests that the training
requirement may be triggered merely by filing a complaint. We agree. See Tut. LAB. CODE ANN. 5 21.556 (Vernon
Supp. 2004-05); 29 TEX. REG. 3653 (2004) (to be codified at 40 TEX. ADMIN. CODE 5 819.18(a)-(b)).
‘see Brief from Don Ballard, Deputy General Counsel, Texas Workforce Commission, to Honorable Greg
Abbott, Texas Attorney General, at 4 (Aug. 2,2004) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Commission Brief].
Page 4
Mr. Lowry Mays - Page 4
(GA-0281)
II.
Analysis
TAMU suggests that the Rule exceeds the Commission’s statutory authority. To address its
concerns, we must interpret the relevant Labor Code provisions and determine whether the Rule
comports with the Commission’s statutory authority.
In construing section 21.556 and chapter 21, we must give effect to the legislature’s intent.
See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. $5 311.021, .023 (Vernon 1998);
Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, 984
S.W.2d 958,960 (Tex. 1999). To do so, we must first attempt to construe statutes according to their
plain language, see In ye Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 702 (Tex. 2001), and must consider section
21.556in thecontext ofchapter 21 as awhole,see
Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47
S.W,3d486,494
(Tex. 2001); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 311 .Ol l(a) (Vernon 1998) (words and phrases to
be read in context). We may also consider, among other things, a statute’s objectives, the legislative
history, the consequences of a particular construction, and its administrative construction. SeeTEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 311.023 (Vernon 1998); see also
id.
5 311.021(2)-(4) (“In enacting a statute,
it is presumed that
the entire statute is intended to be effectivet,] a just and reasonable result is
intended[, and] a result feasible of execution is intended
.“).
In deciding whether the Commission, an administrative agency, has exceeded its rulemaking
powers, the determinative factor is whether the rule’s provisions are “in harmony” with the general
objectives of the statute.
See Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. Y. Meno,
917 S.W.2d 717, 750 (Tex.
1995). In determining whether a rule is in harmony with an act’s general objectives, courts look to
all applicable provisions of that act, rather than one particular section. See Gerst v.
Oak CLSav.
&Loan
Ass’n, 432
S.W.2d 702, 706 (Tex. 1968). Moreover, construction of a statute in the rules
of the administrative
agency charged with the statute’s enforcement “is entitled to ‘serious
consideration,’ so long as the construction is reasonable and does not contradict the plain language
of the statute.”
Tarrant Appraisal Dist.
v.
Moore, 845
S.W.2d 820, 823 (Tex. 1993) (quoting
Standford v. Butler,
181 S.W.2d 269,273 (Tex. 1944)); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0233
(2004) at 4 (stating that so long as an agency’s interpretation of a statute is a reasonable one that does
not do violence to the statutory language, this office will defer to it).
A.
Whether the Rule Is Invalid for Failing to Equate Merit with Reasonable Cause
First we address TAMU’s contention that the Commission
has exceeded its
rulemaking authority under section 21.556 because the Rule does not equate the statutory phrase
“complaints determined to be without merit” with complaints for which the Commission has found
no reasonable cause. See Request Letter,
supra
note 1, at 2-3; see
also
TEX. LAB. CODE ANN.
5 21.556(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).
Section 21.204 of the Labor Code requires the Commission’s
executive director, or the
director’s designee, to investigate an employment discrimination complaint filed pursuant to chapter
21 and to “determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent engaged in an
unlawful employment practice as alleged in the complaint.”
TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 5 21.204(a)
(Vernon 1996). Though chapter 21 does not describe what form an investigation is to take, its plain
language indicates that the investigation is to go beyond the allegations stated in the complaint and
Page 5
Mr. Lowry Mays - Page 5
(GA-0281)
will consist of a review of the evidence supporting the allegations. See
id.
$5 21.205 (requiring the
executive director or fhe director’s designee on a finding that a complaint does not show reasonable
cause to issue a written determination “that
the evidence
does not support the complaint”), ,206
(requiring the executive director or the director’s designee on a finding that a complaint does show
reasonable cause to review with a panel of three commissioners
“the evidence
in the record”)
(emphasis added).
Therefore, a determination
of reasonable cause necessarily means that a
complainant has met the threshold burden of facially stating a legitimate claim and has offered some
proof to support a finding by the Commission that discrimination has likely occurred.
The Commission contends that the legislature intended to create two thresholds: when met,
the first establishes a complaint as meritorious for purposes of the training requirement, and the
second supports a finding of reasonable cause. See Commission Brief, supra note 5, at 5. The
statute’s plain language validates this position. Section 21.556(a) does not use the term “reasonable
cause”; rather,
it uses the term “merit.” See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. $2 1.556(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-
05) (“complaints
other than complaints determined to be without merit”). We presume that every
word in a statute is used for a purpose. See Jessen
Assocs., Inc. v. Bullock,
531 S.W.2d 593, 600
(Tex. 1975). Given the statutory language, it is reasonable for the Commission to distinguish an
assessment of “merit” from an assessment of “reasonable cause.”
The legislative history also supports the Commission’s position. Section 21.556 was adopted
in 1999 following the Sunset Commission’s review of the Texas Commission on Human Rights.
See Act ofMay 17,1999,76th Leg., R.S., ch. 872,s 15, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 3556,3565; HOUSE
COMM. ON STATE AFFAIRS, BILL ANALYSIS, Tex. H.B. 1976, 76th Leg., R.S. (1999) (enrolled
version, “Background and Purpose”) (“After reviewing the commission,
the Sunset Advisory
Commission had recommended its continuation and other statutory modifications.“).
According to
the Sunset Advisory Commission Staff Report, the state has an interest in preventing and resolving
discriminatory activity before it results in costly litigation. See
SUNSET ADVISORY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT, TEXAS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, at 7 (October 1998). To this end, fhe
Sunset Advisory Commission advised the legislature to adopt the language of section 21.556(a),
which had formerly been contained in an appropriations rider,6 to “ensure that the Commission
continues to provide comprehensive training to familiarize all state agencies and public institutions
of higher education with [equal employment
opportunity] laws and to prevent employment
discrimination from occurring.”
Id.
at 26. Thus, section 21.556(a)‘s purpose is not to remedy
particular instances of discrimination or penalize state agencies after the fact. Rather, its purpose
is to require training of state agency personnel in order to prevent employment discrimination. When
viewed in the context of this purpose, it is reasonable to conclude that the legislature did not intend
“merit” to rise to the level of“reasonable cause.” The Commission’s construction of“without merit”
not to require a “reasonable cause” finding gives substance to and is consistent with section
21.556(a)‘s broad preventative purpose.
Finally, the Commission’s
interpretation
of “without merit” is consistent with the
legislature’s use of the phrase in another statute. Section 1071.402 of the Occupations Code
%ke Tex. Att’y Gen. op. No. DM-497 (1998) at 6 ( concluding that
an appropriations act
rider, similar to what
is now section 2 1.556, attempted to amend general law in violation of article III, section 35 of the Texas Constitution).
Page 6
Mr. Lowry Mays - Page 6
(GA-0281)
authorizes the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying to investigate formal complaints tiled
against licensed land surveyors for alleged violations of the Professional Land Surveying Practices
Act. See
TEX.
Oct.
CODE ANN.
9 1071.402 (Vernon 2004). Section 1071.402 requires the board
to assign an employee or to contract with an investigator to investigate each alleged violation. See
id.
5 1071.402(b). The person investigating the alleged violation may dismiss a complaint that is
without merit,
or determine whether a licensed land surveyor has committed the violation and
recommend sanctions to the board. See
id.
§ 1071.402(c)(l)-(2) (emphasis added). In this instance,
the legislature has used “merit” to indicate a complaint that facially states a claim, which if proven
would constitute a violation of that act. Where the same or similar word is used “in the same
connection in different statutes,” it will be given the same meaning in one as it has in the other,
unless there is something to indicate that a different meaning was intended.
L&WSurco Mfg., Inc.
Y. Winn Tile
Co., 580 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1979, writ dism’d).
In sum, because it is consistent with the statute’s plain language, comports with the statute’s
legislative purpose, and is consistent with the legislature’s use of the phrase “without merit” in a
similar statutory context, we conclude that the Commission’s interpretation of section 21.556 to
distinguish between an assessment of“merit” and an assessment of “reasonable cause” is reasonable.
B.
Whether the Rule Misapplies the United States Supreme Court Test
TAMU also argues that the Rule fails to incorporate legal principles for resolving
discrimination complaints that are required by the United States Supreme Court. See Request Letter,
supra note 1, at 4. Specifically, TAMU argues that the Commission misapplies the
McDonnell
Douglas
test.
See id.; see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973).
The
McDonnell Douglas
test outlines a burden-shifting scheme by which the parties’
evidence is evaluated. See
McDonnell Douglas,
411 U.S. at 801-03. The scheme requires the
plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit first to establish a prima facie case. See
id.
If that
burden is satisfied, the defendant then must articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory
reason for
taking the employment action; if the defendant satisfies that burden, the plaintiff must then prove
that the defendant’s stated reason is a pretext for discrimination. See
id.
The Rule requires the Commission, in assessing whether a claim is with or without merit, “to
ascertain whether the complainant has met [the complainant’s] burden ofproviding sufficient factual
evidence
to establish the elements of aprima facie case
of employment discrimination as delineated
by the United States Supreme Court.” 29
TEX. REG.
3653 (2004) (to be codified at 40
TEX. ADMIN.
CODE
3 819.18(a)) (emphasis added). TAMU suggests that the Rule is invalid because the
Commission has selectively picked the first part of the
McDonnell Douglas
test, which the
Commission favors, while ignoring the remainder of the test. See Request Letter,
supra
note 1, at
4-5.
We have already established that the Commission has reasonably construed the term “merit”
in section 21.556(a) to be distinct from the term “reasonable cause.” The
McDonnell Douglas
test
establishes the burden of proof in the context of a trial on the merits to determine whether
discrimination has occurred.
See McDonnell Douglas,
411 US. at 801.03 (requiring the plaintiff
Page 7
Mr. Lowry Mays - Page 7
(GA-0281)
and defendant to come forward with evidence). Section 21.556(a) does not require the Commission
to use the
McDonneN Douglas
test to determine whether a complaint triggers the training
requirement, and the Rule reasonably incorporates only the test’s first part.
C.
Whether the Commission is Misinterpreting the Rule
Finally, TAMU argues that even if the Commission is authorized to adopt the Rule,
the Commission is misinterpreting it. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 5-6. In particular, TAMU
notes that the Rule also includes a second part, an “administrative processing test” of merit, which
the Rule fails to define. See
id.
at 5. The Rule’s section 819.18(a) reads in relevant part:
If a complaint is determined to have met the elements of a prima facie
case, then the complaint will be
administrativelyprocessed [through]
the Commission’s
or EEOC’s
investigation procedures.
If the
Commission makes a determination that a complaint has met both a
Supreme Court [prima facie] test
.
and an
administrative
processing test ofmerit,
a state agency will be determined to have a
complaint of merit assessed against them.
29
TEX.
REG. 3653 (2004) (to be codified at 40
TEX. ADMIN. CODE
§ 819.18(a)) (emphasis added).
In a letter to TAMU, Commission staff clarified this part ofthe Rule by stating that it addresses the
Commission’s jurisdiction over a complaint. See Request Letter,
supra
note 1, at 5; Exhibit 2,
supra
note 1. That is, if the complaint falls within the Commission’s jurisdiction, then the complaint
passes the administrative processing test of merit. See Request Letter,
supra
note 1, at 5-6; Exhibit
2,
supra
note 1. TAMU counters that this explanation is inconsistent with the Rule. See Request
Letter,
supra
note 1, at 6. Instead, TAMU asserts that this language in the Rule should tie the
“administrative processing” test of merit to formal investigation procedures outlined in chapter 21
of the Labor Code. See
id, see also
TEX. LAB. CODE ANN.
5 21.204(a) (Vernon 1996) (directing the
Commission to investigate an employment discrimination complaint for reasonable cause). Thus,
TAMU argues that the Rule itself necessarily requires a finding of reasonable cause before a
complaint can be counted as meritorious. See Request Letter,
supra
note 1, at 6.
We construe administrative rules in the same way as statutes, and an agency’s interpretation
of its own rule is entitled to deference. See
Pub. Util. Comm ‘n v. GulfStates Utils. Co., 809
S.W.2d
201,207 (Tex. 1991). However, ifan agency fails to follow the clear, unambiguous language ofits
own regulation, it exceeds its authority. See
id.
Here, we question the Commission’s assertion that the administrative processing test ofmcrit
is nothing more than a finding that the Commission has jurisdiction over a complaint. See Request
Letter,
supra
note I, at 5-6; Exhibit 2, supra note I.’ The Rule’s subsection @) reads:
‘We rely on the Commission’s letter attached to the TAMU request letter as Exhibit 2. See Exhibit 2, supra
note 1. The Commission did not address the meaning of “administrative processing test of merit” in its brief to this
office. See Commission Brief, supra note 5.
Page 8
Mr. Lowry Mays - Page 8
(GA-0281)
If a complainant.
fails to meet his or her burden of establishing the
elements of a prima facie case as outlined by the Supreme Court, is
prevented from filing a complaint for jurisdictional reasons,
or
provides self-defeating evidence on the face of his or her complaint
that shows the complaint is defective,
then the complaint will not be
administratively processed
nor determined to be with merit.
29
TEX.
REG. 3653 (2004) (to be codified at 40
TEX. ADMIN. CODE
5 819.18(b) (emphasis added)).
By its plain language, subsection (b) suggests that when the Commission lacks jurisdiction over a
complaint, the complaint will not be administratively processed. Because subsection (b) suggests
that establishing jurisdiction is a prerequisite to a complaint being administratively processed, the
Rule’s language does not appear to support the Commission’s construction that administrative
processing is merely a determination ofjurisdiction.
Nevertheless, we disagree that this part of the
Rule necessarily requires a finding of reasonable cause before an employment discrimination
complaint can be counted as meritorious. Nothing in the Rule supports the construction that meeting
the “administrative processing test of merit” is equivalent to a reasonable cause finding.
In sum, the Commission does not appear to have given a meaning to the “administrative
processing test of merit” that is consistent with the Rule as a whole. However, we cannot agree with
TAMU that this part of the Rule limits the Commission to counting only those complaints for which
it has found reasonable cause in determining that an agency must provide equal employment
opportunity training under section 21.556(a).
Page 9
Mr. Lowry Mays - Page 9
(GA-0281)
SUMMARY
Section 21.556(a) of the Labor Code requires a state agency
to provide equal employment
opportunity training after three
employment discrimination complaints have been filed against the
agency other than complaints determined to be without merit.
Section 21.556 does not require that the Texas Workforce
Commission
Civil Rights Division find reasonable cause that
discrimination
has likely occurred in order to determine that a
complaint counts toward the training requirement.
The Texas
Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division rule establishing a
procedure to determine whether a complaint is without merit
reasonably construes section 21.556(a). However, the Commission’s
interpretation of the rule must be consistent with the rule’s plain
language.
Very truly yours,
BARRY R. MCBEE
First Assistant Attorney General
DON R. WILLETT
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
NANCY S. FULLER
Chair, Opinion Committee
Daniel C. Bradford
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Equal Opportunity Employer ~legalization ~ 2.modify your JOB opportunities

"Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Page 1
TexasWorkforcePress Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Larry Jones
DATE: September 13, 2006
PHONE: (512) 463-8556
Texas Workforce Commission Executive Director
Elected President-Elect of National Workforce Association
AUSTIN – Larry Temple, Executive Director of the Texas Workforce Commission, was elected President-
elect of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA), September 8, 2006 at the
association’s annual Board of Director’s meeting in Boise, Idaho. NASWA is a national organization of state
directors of workforce services whose mission is to coordinate local, state, and federal roles in workforce
development. Mr. Temple has been a member of the NASWA Board of Director’s since 2003 where he also
served as Chair of the Administration and Finance Committee and Co-chair of the Communications
Committee.
Larry is the Executive Director of the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), a state agency with an operating
budget of approximately $1.2 billion in addition to the issuance of $2 billion in unemployment insurance
benefits annually. TWC has oversight of the state’s employment, training, welfare reform, childcare, and
unemployment insurance programs and delivers these services to its 254 counties through a network of 28
local workforce development boards.
Temple began his public-sector career in 1992, when he was named deputy director of the Mississippi
Department of Human Services. His successes in Mississippi led him to Texas in 1997, where he was named
director of TWC’s Office of Welfare Reform and later deputy executive director.
He serves as a member of the State’s P-16 Council, which coordinates educational policy between Pre-k and
12 public education and higher education. He also serves on the Texas Workforce Investment Council, whose
charge is to develop strategic planning and evaluation that promotes a well educated and highly skilled
workforce.
Temple brings to the job over 20 years of private-sector management experience in energy, retail and real
estate development. Temple holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from St. Edwards University where he
serves as a member of the Advisory Council.
“I am humbled and honored to be selected President-elect of this fine organization, particularly as this is a vote
by my colleagues around the nation,” said Larry Temple. “Texas has long been recognized as a national leader
in workforce development, through high performance cash bonuses and other awards. I have given my pledge
to the board members from the other states that I will do my best to live up to those same standards while
serving them as President-elect of NASWA.”
The Texas Workforce Commission is a state agency dedicated to helping Texas employers, workers and communities prosper
economically. For details on TWC and the programs it offers in unison with its network of local workforce development boards, call
(512) 463-8556 or visit www.texasworkforce.org.
###lmj
Texas Workforce Commission • 512-463-8942 • http://www.texasworkforce.org • Equal Opportunity Employer
Relay Texas • 1-800-735-2989 (TDD) • 1-800-735-2988 (Voice)

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Texas Public Education Watchdog Authority: Dear Chuy Hinojosa, Florence Shapiro and distinguished Education Committee Members

Texas Public Education Watchdog Authority: Dear Chuy Hinojosa, Florence Shapiro and distinguished Education Committee Members


Just give us (Education) the Lottery Proceeds as per original bill of sale. The Lottery was sold to us (the voters of the great State of Texas) as 100% of the proceeds were for Educating our youth.

What percentage of the Lottery proceeds (currently) are dedicated to the education of our youth?

Why is it, the wealth always steals from our children after acting like they were creating, “doing it for th kids” huge reservoirs of Avarice to siphon off.

Like the Lottery originally was ratified by the people of the Great State of Texas with the belief ot was a moneymaker for our Children’s Education. And now how much of the Lottery revenue makes it to Public Education?



Perry Craddick & Corporate Welfare in the name of WIA, ED Byrne Grant, and under the guise of helping the poor.


With the Education funding we should demand that the dedication of lottery money to the Education of our Children be adhered to as it was sold to Texas. The Lottery when legislated was for the Education of Texas Students. Finally, the Private Sector is funded under the WIA slush fund for Corporate Welfare Recipients under the Guise of a Welfare Reform or Welfare to Work / JOB generating program to help the poor. The rich are getting richer in the name of helping the poor. And one needs to always remember it is both parties dippin into the creative crony contractualism. Give it a title, write a grant and set up a front office with a computer and a sign; then get some brochures and a few token clients and funnel the Avarice in a shell game like manner and voila a new ranch or a new house maybe an agency hummer or King Ranch Pickup Truck with a magnetic sign. Give a few JOBS to your network affiliates and send the clients to perform community based work and get rich and richer doing it. Ask Mary Cano or Oscar Martinez to explain it in detail. Charmed I'm sure.



TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE--FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2007
>(copyright 2007 Texas Federation of Teachers)
>
>Proposed State Budget Shortchanges Schools and Educators; Keep Up the Fight
>For House TRS Plan; House at a Standstill as Speaker Clings to Power
>
>Proposed Budget Shortchanges Public Schools, Education Employees: TFT
>President Linda Bridges put out a press statement today deploring the
>results of the House-Senate conference committee on the 2008-2009 budget.
>The state budget plan in House Bill 1 still must win the approval of
>majorities in both the House and Senate. As President Bridges' statement
>below explains, HB 1 in its current form does not deserve that approval:
>
>"Education and educators would be shortchanged badly in the budget proposed
>by House-Senate conferees this afternoon. Based on the information
>currently
>available, school funding would remain static, not even getting back to the
>level of state and local funding school districts had in 2002 in real
>terms, after you take inflation into account. The $850-a-year
>cost-of-living pay raise for teachers passed by the House last month would
>shrivel to about $425, according to the legislative budget staff. If paid
>out to all teachers across the board, this would amount to less than $25 a
>month after taxes and deductions--not even enough to cover the cost of
>rising average health-care premiums. And the conferees took pains today to
>say the money would not even have to be paid out across the board to all
>teachers.
>
>"Worst of all is what this budget proposal would do regarding TRS pension
>benefits. The bill would withhold an eminently affordable and exceedingly
>modest pension boost--a 13th check for TRS retirees--unless other
>legislation passes
>to impose new levies on all current school employees. The only way retirees
>would get a 13th check, under this scheme devised by Sen. Robert Duncan,
>would be if active school employees pay a higher contribution rate, taking
>roughly $50 million a year out of their pockets. This plan totally
>contradicts the House legislation passed unanimously on Wednesday that
>would provide a 13th check for retirees fully funded by the state, without
>imposing any new levies on active employees.
>
>"In short, school districts under this budget would regain none of the
>ground they have lost financially, teachers would get at best a measly pay
>raise of less than $25 a month that wouldn't even keep up with inflation,
>and 300,000 school support personnel would suffer an actual pay cut, as a
>result of the higher levies imposed on them for TRS with no compensating
>increase in pay. You have to give the
>conferees credit--it takes a certain ingenuity to come up with a plan this
>bad at a time when the state is sitting on a record-high budget surplus."
>
>Keep Up the Fight for House TRS Plan! At this writing members of the Texas
>House are standing firm in support of their unanimously approved plan for a
>13th check for TRS retirees, funded by an increase in the state
>contribution rate to 6.7 percent, with no new costs imposed on active
>school employees. Several Senate offices reported to us today that they are
>receiving a high volume of calls in support of this House version of SB
>1846--as well they should be. The Senate alternative proposed by Sen.
>Robert Duncan, Republican of Lubbock, is a thinly veiled attempt to shift
>state costs for TRS pensions onto active employees and their school
>districts.
>
>Duncan let slip the real agenda during floor debate on his plan,
>noting that increasing the TRS levy on active employees and requiring a
>contribution from school districts could "free up general revenue for other
>purposes." In other words, this scheme would allow the state to save money
>by shifting costs onto education employees and local taxpayers.
>
>Duncan's staff in response to callers today reportedly was claiming that
>the freshly hatched budget deal (see above) means that there's no money and
>no time left to provide this session for the 6.7-percent state contribution
>rate that the House proposes. But that's not so. The legislature has
>billions of dollars left to allocate right now, and it would take only a
>tiny fraction of that treasure--less than 1 percent of it, in fact--for the
>state to get to the 6.7-percent TRS contribution rate from the 6.58 percent
>already built into the budget. Even if the budget bill passes in its
>current form, the
>House plan for a fully state-paid 13th check with no new costs imposed on
>active employees could also still pass and become law with full force and
>effect, delivering a 13th check in September.
>
>The upshot is that you have an opportunity right now to shape the outcome
>of this TRS benefit fight in the critical remaining days before adjournment
>of the legislative session on Monday. Just send the letter on this issue to
>your state senator from the TFT Web site. If you don't know your state
>senator, you can find out quickly when you go to that Web letter.
>
>Speaker's Grip on Gavel Threatened: The Texas House came to a standstill at
>8 PM this evening, as Speaker of the House Tom Craddick shut off House
>members' microphones and called a three-hour recess to head off a
>rank-and-file revolt
>threatening to oust him from the speaker's chair. The Midland Republican is
>under heavy fire from both fellow Republicans and Democrats for what many
>consider his tyrannical rule of the House. Tonight he gave them new grist
>for their argument, by ruling that there is no appeal to the membership as
>a whole if he blocks the parliamentary procedure needed to oust him. His
>ruling, epitomizing the arbitrary, one-man rule of which Speaker Craddick
>stands accused, apparently has led to the resignation of the House
>parliamentarian in protest this evening. Like everyone else at the capitol,
>we are now waiting to see if the House will actually reconvene tonight.
>Keep an eye out for news of the latest developments in the daily TFT
>hotlines that will be published each of the next three days as the
>legislative session hurtles toward final adjournment.


Senate Committee on Education
Committee Information
Chair Vice-Chair Members:

Thursday, May 24, 2007

"IN THE KNOW": dont ever forget who put you on the map.

"IN THE KNOW": dont ever forget who put you on the map.


Dear Rev. Jones,

Tuesday Morning on El Defenzor Live you posed a question (In our eyes) did the past city council do anything positive?

The answer is simple

It takes many good deeds to build a reputation, and only one bad one to lose it. - Ben Frankiln.

Leadership or associates that have been shown to have lied, deliberately misled or fabricated information or have hidden their beliefs or behaviors to gain an audience, money, friendship, even upon a declared repentance, could never be fully trusted again in many people's minds. Not because they cannot be forgiven, but because, by their very own deceptive words they have deliberately misled people for gain in some way, while being in a place of influence or control and trust in another person's life. The lies have fully broken their trustworthiness, and saying they can now be trusted is not the same as being able to trust them. True Biblical repentance would likely have those in leadership remove themselves from any position of authority, because of the very necessary Biblical qualifications for being placed in leadership in the first place. Leadership must prove they are indeed trustworthy, honest and sound in the faith, which would of necessity take more than a little time to prove, especially for those who have betrayed trust through lies and deception.
Be fair, lose that big head (humble yourself) and let Homer speak. You have 4 other days to talk, talk, talk and now people actually listen but dont ever forget who put you on the map.

Your's Truly,

J. Kenedeno

Monday, April 16, 2007

Program expansion is a natural result of the need to support CCisd or are youin need a feasibility study could immediately begin to assess.....illeg

"Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

PRINT THIS STORY | E-MAIL THIS STORY

City, Port officials back lawmakers proposing A&M-CC engineering school

By Israel Saenz/Caller-Times
April 16, 2007

City and Port of Corpus Christi officials on Monday met with state legislators in support of an engineering school at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.

Officials who traveled to Austin, including Port Chairman Ruben Bonilla, Mayor Henry Garrett and Port Vice-Chairman Bernard Paulson, discussed two bills which would allow the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents to establish such a school at the university.

;
The bill was filed by March 5 Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen. Area representatives Juan Garcia, Solomon P. Ortiz Jr. and Abel Herrero filed a similar bill March 9 in the House.

"We testified that A&M-Corpus Christi is a growing regional university, and has an expanding curriculum," Bonilla said. "It has a developing relationship with the Port of Corpus Christi and port industries, as well as the rest of the Coastal Bend. An engineering school at A&M-Corpus Christi would provide a steady pool of qualified engineers."

A&M — Corpus Christi President Flavius Killebrew did not take part in the trip, but released a statement Monday voicing support for the bills.

"Program expansion is a natural result of the need to support the curricular interests of an expanded student body," the statement read. "The university has long sought to serve the needs of the community and will continue to do so. We appreciate the senator’s support of the university and it’s growth."

Garcia said if the bill passes, a feasibility study could immediately begin to assess the cost of the program to the state as well as its economic impact.

Contact Israel Saenz at 886-3767 or saenzi@caller.com

Friday, March 09, 2007

Watt is the hold up Mary Cano......

"Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Where is your affidavit "Ms. Haley~anything i say is only going to go AGAINST you"


bring it biotch~ as sonic the hedgehog says:~"I'm waiting"

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Substitute Teaching Does Not Qualify as Employment per Texas Workforce Commission

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

TEXAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW

TEXAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW
A. Sources of Law, Organization, and Websites
The Texas Unemployment Compensation Act is found at TEX. LABOR CODE ANN.
CHAPTER 201.
The “Texas Workforce Commission” (referred to herein as “TWC”) is the state agency
that administers the act pursuant to TEX. LABOR CODE ANN. CHAPTER 301. Prior to 1995,
the agency that administered the act was called the “Texas Employment Commission,” and the
older case law will refer to it (or TEC) rather than the Texas Workforce Commission or TWC.
Pursuant to TEX. LABOR CODE ANN. §§301.061 and 302.002, the TWC has enacted rules and
regulations, and the rules and regulations for unemployment insurance may be found at 40 TEX.
ADMIN. CODE Chapter 815. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
TWC
has a detailed website at http://www.twc.state.tx.us. You will need to make sure
that you have Adobe Acrobat Reader to access many of the items in the website. When you
open the website, it will have a map of Texas surrounded by boxes with various headings that are
interactive links to the website. Click on the heading that says “JOB SEEKERS AND
EMPLOYEES”. When you click on this heading, it will take you to a table of contents and the
topics are also interactive links to the site. Click on the heading that says “Unemployment Claim
and Appeals Information,” and it will take you to the table of contents for “Unemployment
Claim and Appeals Information,” which is located at the following address:
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/customers/jsemp/jsempsub2.html. Another helpful part of the website
is the table entitled “Laws: Statutes and Rules” located at
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/customers/rpm/rpmsub1.html and the headings are interactive links to
the laws and rules.
The website includes a complete copy of the above mentioned rules, and the index to the
rules may be found in a table located at http://www.twc.state.tx.us/twcinfo/rules/twcrules.html.
The unemployment compensation rules are found in Chapter 815 in the table and may be
accessed in either PDF (requires Adobe Acrobat to read) or Word 97 format. In addition to the
rules, the TWC Appeals Manual, which describes the appeals process and states the procedures
for the handling of appeals, may be found at http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/appl/app_man1.html.
The TWC Appeals Policy and Precedent Manual, which contains digest paragraphs of case
holdings made or approved by the Commission and designated by the Commission to stand as
precedent, is available online also at http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/appl/app_manual.html.

207.041. SERVICES IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: "reasonable assurance that the individual will perform services

 § 207.041. SERVICES IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.  (a)
Benefits are not payable to an individual based on services
performed in an instructional, research, or principal
administrative capacity for an educational institution for a week
beginning during the period between two successive academic years
or terms or under an agreement providing for a similar period
between two regular but not successive terms if:
(1) the individual performed the services in the first
of the academic years or terms; and
(2) there is a contract or reasonable assurance that
the individual will perform services in that capacity for any
educational institution in the second of the academic years or
terms.
(b) Benefits are not payable to an individual based on
services performed for an educational institution in a capacity
other than a capacity described by Subsection (a) for a week that
begins during a period between two successive academic years or
terms if:
(1) the individual performed the services in the first
of the academic years or terms; and
(2) there is a reasonable assurance that the
individual will perform the services in the second of the academic
years or terms.
(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), if benefits are denied
to an individual for any week under Subsection (b) and the
individual is not offered an opportunity to perform services for
the educational institution for the second of the academic years or
terms, the individual is entitled to a retroactive payment of the
benefits for each week that:
(1) the individual filed a timely claim for benefits;
and
(2) the benefits were denied solely because of
Subsection (b).
(d) Benefits are not payable to an individual based on
services performed for an educational institution for a week that
begins during an established and customary vacation period or
holiday recess if:
(1) the individual performed the services in the
period immediately before the vacation period or holiday recess;
and
(2) there is a reasonable assurance that the
individual will perform the services in the period immediately
following the vacation period or holiday recess.
(e) Benefits are not payable as provided under this section
to an individual based on services performed in an educational
institution if the individual performed the services while employed
by an educational service agency. For the purposes of this
subsection, "educational service agency" means a governmental
agency or other governmental entity that is established and
operated exclusively to provide services to one or more educational
institutions.

Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.

TPU 105.00: Substitute teachers may have reasonable


7. The following is current Commission policy, Appeal No. 82-4799-10-0782 (TPU 105.00), with regard to substitute teachers:

8. The following are some factors the Hearing Officer should keep in mind when deciding whether or not a substitute teacher had reasonable assurance of being called the next year or term:

    1. The Hearing Officer should find out how long the claimant has been on a substitute teacher list for this employer and how many times they have been called.

    2. The Hearing Officer should also determine the total number of people on the past substitute list and the probable number of people on the next year's list.

    3. The method the employer uses in determining what people will be called from the substitute list should be explored.



APPEALS POLICY AND PRECEDENT MANUAL

TOTAL AND PARTIAL UNEMPLOYMENT

TPU 105.00

TPU 105.00 CONTRACT OBLIGATION.
INCLUDES CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT'S CONTRACTS
OR AGREEMENTS HAVE AN EFFECT ON DETERMINING HIS
UNEMPLOYMENT STATUS.

Appeal No. 82-4799-10-0782. Substitute teachers may have reasonable

assurance of continued employment within the meaning of
Section 3(f) (now codified as Section 207.041) of the Act. In determining
whether such reasonable assurance exists with regard to
substitute teachers, the following criteria should be utilized:
The school district must furnish to the Commission
written statements which provide facts that the substitute
teacher has been asked to continue in the
same capacity for the following academic year. Simply
placing the substitute teacher on a list for the following
year does not establish reasonable assurance.
It must be shown that both parties expect the relationship
to resume at the beginning of the following
year. The assurance must also be based on past experience
with regard to the number of substitutes
needed in the past.