Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rosas v. Arizona Department of Economic Security

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

March 5, 2019

MARIA ROSAS, Appellant,
v.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, an Agency, and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA INC, Appellees. MARIA CASTILLO, Appellant,
v.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, an Agency, and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA INC, Appellees. ALICIA SOLORZANO, Appellant,
v.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, an Agency, and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA INC, Appellees. XOCHITL CORREA, Appellant,
v.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, an Agency, and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA INC, Appellees.

          Appeal from the A.D.E.S. Appeals Board No. U-1548356-001 B No. U-1548603-001 B No. U-1548481-001 B No. U-1548369-001 B

          Smith PLC, Phoenix By Stephen C. Biggs Counsel for Appellants

          Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By JoAnn Falgout Counsel for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security

          Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

          OPINION

          THOMPSON, JUDGE:

         ¶1 This is an administrative law case. The appellant-claimants (hereafter, employees) timely appeal from the decisions of respondent Arizona Department of Economic Security (Department) Appeals Board's (Board) denial of their claims for unemployment benefits. Employees raise one issue: whether the Board erred as a matter of law by denying them benefits for the 2016 summer recess between school terms. We find the Board did err and employees are entitled to unemployment benefits.

         JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶2 This court has jurisdiction to review unemployment benefit decisions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 41-1993(B) (2018).[1] We defer to the ALJ's factual findings unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Munguia v. Dep't of Econ. Sec, 159 Ariz. 157, 158-59 (App. 1988). However, this court draws its own legal conclusions and determines whether the Board properly interpreted the law and applied it to the facts. Avila v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec, 160 Ariz. 246, 248 (App. 1989).

         PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

         ¶3 Employees work for the respondent employer, Chicanos Por La Causa (the non-profit), an Arizona non-profit corporation, at its childcare centers. The non-profit operates licensed childcare facilities for infants, toddlers and preschool children up to the age of five-years-old. The non-profit's childcare facilities administer federally funded Early Head Start and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs as part of its Early Childhood Development program.

         ¶4 Employee Maria Rosas worked as an infant and toddler teacher and employee Maria Castillo worked as a cook at the childcare center, in Somerton, Arizona. Employee Alicia Solorzano worked as a cook's assistant at the childcare center in Yuma, Arizona.[2] Employee Xochitl Correa worked as an infant and toddler teacher at the childcare center in San Luis, Arizona.[3]

         ¶5 Before each childcare center closed for the summer break, the employees all received a reasonable assurance of reemployment in the fall. Employees applied for, and were granted, unemployment benefits for the summer break. The non-profit appealed the deputy's determinations, and the department's Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) held evidentiary hearings.

         ¶6 Relying on A.R.S. § 23-750(E)(5) (2018), the Tribunal reversed and found employees were not entitled to unemployment benefits. The Tribunal reasoned that the non-profit "provides services to or on behalf of an educational institution," namely the Gadsden, Somerton, and Yuma school districts (collectively, school districts), and that each employee "had reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following school year." For these reasons, it concluded that the employees were subject to the" between and within terms" exclusion to payment of unemployment benefits. Employees appealed to the Board, which adopted the Tribunal's reasoning and affirmed the denial of benefits.

         ¶7 Employees timely filed applications for appeal to this court. We granted leave to appeal and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.