Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
In a groundbreaking decision on telecommuting, the New York Court of Appeals on Wednesday held that physical — not virtual — presence governs eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. The court’s 6-0 decision in Allen v. Commissioner of Labor, apparently marks the first time any state or federal court has applied to telecommuting the uniform definition of “employment” as it relates to unemployment benefits. It said that definition, adopted by most states, is premised on the goal of providing benefits in the locale where the unemployed individual resides and is most likely to seek another job. “While the drafters of the uniform rule could not have envisioned a world of interstate telecommuting, these underlying purposes remain valid, and are best served by tying localization to the state in which an interstate telecommuter is physically present,” Judge Susan Phillips Read wrote for the court. Also Wednesday, in its last hand-down before the summer recess, the court: � Upheld the constitutionality of New York’s anti-stalking statute. All six judges agreed with the result in People v. Stuart, 87, but the jurists differed over the process of constitutional analysis in a vagueness challenge. � Reversed the conviction of an Ossining woman who left offensive messages for two employees on the answering machine of the Parking Violations Bureau. People v. Linda Mangano, 67, addressed the constitutionality of the state’s aggravated harassment statute. � Handed the newly installed president of the New York State Bar Association a pair of losses in zoning cases. The Court held in Matter of Cohen v. Board of Appeals of the Village of Saddle Rock, 81, and Matter of Frank Russo v. Irving Black, 82, that state law preempts local zoning codes. State Bar President A. Thomas Levin represented the losing appellants in both cases. The telecommuter case involved Maxine Allen, a computer specialist with Reuters America Inc. who worked out of the firm’s Long Island headquarters until her husband changed jobs and they moved to Florida. When Allen moved, Reuters provided her with a laptop computer and other equipment necessary to connect to the company’s mainframe in New York. She was required to maintain regular hours, report sick days, obtain permission to start her day late or end it early, and was in daily contact with her supervisors. After Reuters ended the telecommuting arrangement in 1999 and Allen declined the company’s offer to return to the New York office, she applied for unemployment benefits. Initially, she sought Florida benefits. However, after learning that New York would pay her considerably more ($365 weekly compared with $275 weekly), Allen applied for New York benefits. The state Department of Labor said she was not eligible, an administrative law judge said she was, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board — in a determination upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Department — found that Allen was not eligible because all of her work was performed in Florida. On Wednesday, the Court of Appeals resolved the matter with what is apparently a first-in-the-nation decision. The ruling hinged on the definition of employment in � 511 of the Labor Law. That definition, which refers to work localized in a particular state and a person’s “base of operation,” is derived from the uniform standard embraced by most states. Here, Allen claimed that physical presence in New York was not required for purposes of unemployment benefits because her services were actually localized at Reuters’ mainframe in New York. But the court rejected that reasoning. “In our view, physical presence is the most practicable indicium of localization for the interstate commuter who inhabits today’s ‘virtual’ workplace linked by Internet connections and data exchanges,” Judge Read said. She said that “no other state or federal court seems yet to have interpreted the uniform rule as applied to interstate telecommuters.” Allen appeared pro se. Assistant Attorney General Dawn A. Foshee argued for the commissioner.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.