BOARD OF APPEALS
|DECISION NO: 1104-BR-90
DATE: November 2, 1990
|CLAIMANT: Freda V. Myers
|| APPEAL NO.: 9009750
|EMPLOYER: Community Action Council
|L.O. NO: 23
Issue: Whether the claimant is eligible for benefits under Section
4(f)(3), 4(f)(4) or 4(f)(6) of the law.
NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COURT
YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LAWS OF MARYLAND. THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN IN PERSON
OR THROUGH AN ATTORNEY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE
CITY, IF YOU RESIDE IN BALTIMORE CITY, OR THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE COUNTY IN MARYLAND IN WHICH YOU RESIDE.
THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT ON December
|FOR THE CLAIMANT:
|| FOR THE EMPLOYER:
REVIEW ON THE RECORD
Upon review of the record in this case, the Board of Appeals
reverses the decision of the concludes The Hearing Board
that Examiner. the claimant was not performing services
for or on behalf of an educational institution, within
the meaning of Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4), nor was she
performing services for an educational service agency
as that term is defined in Section 4(f)(6) of the law.
The claimant was employed by Community Action Council ("CAC")
as a teacher for the Head Start Program. Head Start is
primarily a social service program for low-income families and children.
An educational institution is defined in Section 20(u) as
meaning an educational institution in which:
|(i) Participants, trainees, or students are offered
an organized course of study or training; and
(ii) The courses of study or training are academic,
technical, trade, or preparatory for gainful employment
in a recognized occupation.
The Board finds as a fact that neither the CAC1
nor the Head Start Program is an educational institution
within the meaning of Sections 20(u) and 4(f). This finding
is based on the undisputed testimony of the claimant.
In a prior decision involving another Head Start Program,
Kline v. Frederick Co. Commissioners Head Start, 468-BH-85,
the Board set out in some detail the purpose and objectives
of Head Start and concluded that the program "was designed
to help break this cycle of poverty by providing pre-school
children of low income families with a comprehensive program
to meet their emotional, social, health, nutritional and psychological needs."
What little evidence there is in this case tends to show that
the Head Start Program here is similar to the one in Kline.
See also, Harbin v. Community Action Council of Howard County, 999-BR-90 .
Similarly, the Board finds, based on the claimant's testimony, that
the services performed by the claimant were not performed
on behalf of an educational institution. As the Board
stated in Kline:
… the Head Start Program is performing services on
behalf of the children and the families of the children
who attend these programs. While certainly there
are some advantages inured to the school systems
who will eventually be accepting these children
into their rolls, it is not on their behalf that
these programs were set up but clearly on behalf
of financially disadvantaged children and in some
cases handicapped children, "to strengthen the ability
of a disadvantaged child to cope with school and
the child's total environment, thus helping thousands
of children to look forward to a brighter future."
Head Start A Child Development Program pamphlet at p. 1.
The Board also concludes that the claimant was not performing
services for an educational service agency. That is defined
in Section 4(f)(6) as:
. . . a governmental entity which is established and
operated exclusively for the purposes of providing
such services to one or more educational institutions.
Neither the CAC nor the Head Start Program meet this definition.
Since the Board concludes that the claimant was not performing
services for or on behalf of an educational institution
or educational service agency, it is unnecessary to reach
the question of whether she had reasonable assurance.
For all these reasons, the Board reverses the decision of
the Hearing Examiner and concludes that the claimant should
not be disqualified under Sections 4(f)(3), 4(f)(4) or
4(f)(6) of the law.
1 There is very little evidence on the general function
and format of the CAC. However, there is sufficient evidence
from the claimant's testimony to conclude that it is a
social service agency and not an educational institution.
The claimant is not disqualified from receiving benefits within
the meaning of Sections 4(f)(3), 4(f)(4) or 4(f)(6) of
the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is reversed.
Hazel A. Warnick, Associate Member
Thomas W. Keech, Chairman
COPIES MAILED TO:
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - COLUMBIA