Board of Review Decision 352-N58L-RTFL

A full-time paraprofessional for a public school system received a letter offering her re-employment in the same position for the subsequent academic year. Because the economic terms of the position were set by a collective bargaining agreement and would not change, the letter offered the claimant reasonable assurance of reemployment. Although the claimant performed additional work for the employer outside of her duties as a paraprofessional, the record indicated they were not enough to be monetarily eligible for benefits based on those wages alone.

Board of Review
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Issue ID: 352-N58L-RTFL

Board of Review Decision

Introduction and Procedural History of this Appeal

The claimant appeals a decision by a review examiner of the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) to deny unemployment benefits. We review, pursuant to our authority under G.L. c. 151A, § 41, and affirm. 

The claimant separated from her position with the employer on June 14, 2025. She filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the DUA, effective June 15, 2025, but was denied benefits for the period between June 15, 2025, and August 29, 2025, in a determination issued on October 29, 2025. The claimant appealed the determination to the DUA hearings department. Following a hearing on the merits attended by both parties, the review examiner affirmed the agency’s initial determination and denied benefits in a decision rendered on April 17, 2026. We accepted the claimant’s application for review.

Benefits were denied after the review examiner determined that the claimant had been given reasonable assurance of re-employment in the next academic year, and, thus, she was disqualified under G.L. c. 151A, § 28A. After considering the recorded testimony and evidence from the hearing, the review examiner’s decision, and the claimant’s appeal, we remanded the case to the review examiner to obtain additional evidence about the position offered to the claimant in the subsequent academic year. Both parties attended the remand hearing. Thereafter, the review examiner issued her consolidated findings of fact. Our decision is based upon our review of the entire record.

The issue before the Board is whether the review examiner’s decision, which concluded that the claimant paraprofessional teacher aide was not eligible for benefits in the period between the 2024–25 and 2025–26 academic years because the employer had provided her with reasonable assurance of re-employment, is supported by substantial and credible evidence and is free from error of law.

Findings of Fact

The review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact and credibility assessment are set forth below in their entirety:

1. On June 18, 2025, the claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits (UI) with an effective date of June 15, 2025. 
2. The employer is a public school. 
3. The claimant began working for the employer [on] September 13, 2021, as a certified Spanish language interpreter. 
4. The claimant began working for the employer as a paraprofessional teacher aide on December 30, 2024.
5. During the 2024-2025 academic year, the claimant was a full-time paraprofessional teacher aide earning $26.62 per hour. 
6. During the 2025-2026 academic year, the claimant was a full-time paraprofessional teacher aide earning $26.62 per hour. 
7. The claimant worked under a paraprofessional contract. 
8. As a paraprofessional, the claimant was contracted to be paid for 40 hours per week. 
9. The claimant sometimes filled in as a substitute teacher depending on the needs of the employer. 
10. The claimant was paid her usual hourly pay when substitute teaching in addition to extra pay of $20.00 for a minimum of 3 hours, $50.00 for more than 3 hours, or $85.00 per day if substituting for more than one day. 
11. When the claimant worked as a substitute teacher, she recorded her substituting time differently than when she worked as a paraprofessional. 
12. The claimant’s contract did not require her to fill in as a substitute teacher. 
13. The claimant sometimes assisted with translating needs of teachers and others when communicating with Spanish speaking students’ families. 
14. The claimant’s contract did not require her to translate. 
15. The claimant did not receive additional pay for assisting with translation. 
16. The claimant’s schedule followed the public school’s calendar regarding vacations and holidays.
17. The claimant was laid off from work during the school’s summer breaks. 
18. The employer provides employees in the claimant’s position with letters of reasonable assurance to return to their positions after the summer break. 
19. The claimant has received letters of reasonable assurance from the employer in the past. 
20. The claimant received a letter of reasonable assurance from the employer dated June 9, 2025, that read, in part, “… We anticipate the continued need for your services in the same role for next year. This letter is to provide you with reasonable assurance of re-employment for the upcoming 2025-2026 school year. The academic year is scheduled to commence on August 20. …” 
21. On June 14, 2025, the 2025 summer break began, and the claimant was laid off from her position. 
22. On August 20, 2025, the claimant returned to work for the employer in the same position as a paraprofessional with no changes to her hours, pay, title, or responsibilities. 
23. The claimant worked continuously until she resigned on September 17, 2025.

Ruling of the Board

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we review the record and the decision made by the review examiner to determine: (1) whether the consolidated findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence; and (2) whether the review examiner’s conclusion is free from error of law. After such review, the Board adopts the review examiner’s consolidated findings of fact except as follows. The portion of Consolidated Findings 18–20 that characterizes the letter issued to the claimant as a “reasonable assurance” letter is not a factual finding. It is a legal conclusion, which at this stage of the proceedings is left to the Board of Review. See Dir. of Division of Employment Security v. Fingerman, 378 Mass. 461, 463–464 (1979). In adopting the remaining findings, we deem them to be supported by substantial and credible evidence. As discussed more fully below, we agree with the review examiner’s legal conclusion that the claimant was not entitled to benefits in the period between the 2024–25 and 2025–26 academic years. 

As a non-professional employee of an educational institution, the claimant’s eligibility for benefits during the relevant period is properly analyzed under the following provisions of G.L. c. 151A, § 28A, which state, in relevant part: 

Benefits based on service in employment as defined in subsections (a) and (d) of section four A shall be payable in the same amount, on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as benefits payable on the basis of other service subject to this chapter, except that: . . . 

(b) with respect to services performed in any other capacity for an educational institution, benefits shall not be paid on the basis of such services to any individual for any week commencing during a period between two successive academic years or terms if such individual performs such services in the first of such academic years or terms and there is a reasonable assurance that such individual will perform such services in the second of such academic years or terms; provided that, if such individual was not offered an opportunity to perform such services for the educational institution for the second of such academic years or terms, such individual shall be entitled to a retroactive payment of benefits for each week for which the individual filed a timely claim for benefits and for which benefits were denied solely because of a finding that such individual had reasonable assurance of performing services in the second of such academic years or terms; 

(c) with respect to services described in subsections (a) and (b), benefits shall not be paid to any individual on the basis of such services for any week commencing during an established and customary vacation period or holiday recess if such individual performs such services in the period immediately before such vacation period or holiday recess, and there is a reasonable assurance that such individual will perform such services in the period immediately following such vacation period or holiday recess . . .

If it is determined that a claimant had reasonable assurance of re-employment for her position with the employer pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 28A, her base period earnings from that position are excluded when calculating her weekly benefit rate for the period between academic years. 

Under the federal guidelines, a claimant does not have reasonable assurance of re-employment unless he or she receives a bona fide offer of re-employment in the subsequent academic year in the same capacity and under the same or similar economic terms as the previous academic year. Such an offer may be written, oral, or implied and must be made by an individual with actual hiring authority. See U.S. Department of Labor Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. (UIPL) 5-17, (Dec. 22, 2016), 4(a). 

The review examiner initially found the employer had provided the claimant with reasonable assurance of re-employment for the 2025–26 academic year in a letter issued to the claimant on June 9, 2025. Although this letter did not contain details about the economic terms of the position offered to the claimant, it confirmed the employer was offering work to the claimant in the same capacity as a full-time paraprofessional for the 2025–26 academic year. Consolidated Finding 20. 

On remand, the parties testified that the pay and hours of the paraprofessional position offered to the claimant in the June 9^th letter were governed by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. As the parties also confirmed there was no change to the contractual provisions governing paraprofessionals’ pay and hours for the 2025-26 academic year, we are satisfied that the June 9^th letter communicated a bona fide offer of re-employment under the same economic terms as the 2024-25 academic year. See Consolidated Findings 5–8 and 20. Consequently, we believe the employer met its burden to show that the claimant had reasonable assurance of re-employment for the 2025–26 academic year. 

The claimant also performed wage-earning services for the instant employer that were outside of the scope of her contractual duties as a paraprofessional. Consolidated Findings 9, 10, 12, and 14. She argued that a reduction in the availability of this additional work in the 2025–26 academic year meant she had not been given reasonable assurance of re-employment. However, because these additional services were distinct from the claimant’s work as a paraprofessional, a reduction in their availability does not alter our analysis of whether the claimant had reasonable assurance of re-employment for the paraprofessional position under G.L. c. 151A, § 28A. 

Although the wages paid to the claimant for this additional work are considered separately under G.L. c. 151A, § 28A, neither party presented evidence of how much the claimant was paid for this additional work during her base period. As a result, the claimant has not shown she would be monetarily eligible for benefits based solely on those wages.

We, therefore, conclude as a matter of law that the employer provided the claimant with reasonable assurance of re-employment for the subsequent academic period within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 28A(b), in her full-time paraprofessional job, and she is disqualified from receiving benefits during the relevant period based upon wages earned in that position. 

The review examiner’s decision is affirmed. The claimant is denied benefits for the week ending June 21, 2025, through the week ending August 16, 2025, unless otherwise eligible.

Boston, Massachusetts                                              Date of Decision – June 18, 2026

1. The parties’ uncontested testimony in this regard is part of the unchallenged evidence introduced at the hearing and placed in the record, and it is thus properly referred to in our decision today. See Bleich v. Maimonides School, 447 Mass. 38, 40 (2006); Allen of Michigan, Inc. v. Deputy Dir. of Department of Employment and Training, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 370, 371 (2005).
2. The claimant testified that she only performed this additional work for the employer once or twice a month during the 2024–25 academic year. G.L. c. 151A, § 24(a), states that a claimant must have earned $2,000.00 in the base period. However, as required under the statute, this amount is adjusted based on changes to the Commonwealth’s minimum wage. At the time the claimant filed her claim, the minimum earnings were $6,300.00. Based on the claimant’s testimony and pay information included in Consolidated Finding 9, the record suggests that she had not earned unexcluded wages in excess of $6,300.00 from the instant employer during her base period.

Martha M. Wishart, Esq.
Chair

Michael J. Albano
Member

Any further appeal would further appeal further appeal would be to a Massachusetts State District Court
(See Section 42, Chapter 151A, General Laws, Enclosed)

The last day to appeal this decision to a Massachusetts District Court is thirty days from the mail date on the first page of this decision. If that thirtieth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the last day to appeal this decision is the business day next following the thirtieth day.

Visit this page to locate the nearest Massachusetts District Court.

Please be advised that fees for services rendered by an attorney or agent to a claimant in connection with an appeal to the Board of Review are not payable unless submitted to the Board of Review for approval, under G.L. c. 151A, § 37.

LSW/rh