EDD denied my claim as substitute teacher due to 'reasonable assurance' - fighting this decision

You can definitely appeal this! I'm a former sub who went through the exact same thing last year. 'Reasonable assurance' doesn't apply the same way to day-to-day subs as it does to contract teachers. In your appeal, focus on these points: - You have no guaranteed hours or income - You're only called when needed (no regular schedule) - There's no contractual obligation for the district to provide you work - Your income fluctuates significantly throughout the year I won my appeal by providing pay stubs showing how irregular my work was (some weeks with 5 days, others with 0-1 days). Also include the email they sent - it usually just asks if you want to remain on the list, which isn't the same as a job offer or contract. Be prepared for a phone interview with an EDD judge. They'll ask specific questions about your work arrangement. Good luck!

same happened 2 me. got denied bcuz of that 'reasonable assurence' thing. its BS! how is being on a LIST reasonable assurence??? some weeks i got no calls at all during regular school yr!!

I had this EXACT problem but with North County School District! They always deny subs initially because they just run everything through an automated system. Anyone who works for a school district gets flagged with the same 'reasonable assurance' denial regardless of your actual employment status. I FOUGHT IT AND WON! Here's what I did: 1. Filed the appeal form right away (don't miss the deadline!) 2. Got documentation from my district showing I was a day-to-day sub with no guaranteed hours 3. Kept a record of all the days I was available but NOT called during the regular school year 4. Printed the relevant section of CA unemployment code about reasonable assurance (look up CUIC section 1253.3) The appeal hearing was over the phone. The judge asked specific questions about my work arrangement. BE PREPARED to explain clearly that as a sub, you have no guarantee of work. The whole process took about 5 weeks, but I got ALL my backpay once I won. DON'T GIVE UP! The system is designed to deny first and make you appeal!

When you file for unemployment you check the box that says you expect to return to work for your employer. That's why they deny you. You need to be careful how you anwser those questions even if you are a sub.

I work in HR for a school district (not yours) and can offer some insight. Under CA Education Code 1253.3, school employees typically can't collect unemployment during scheduled breaks if they have reasonable assurance of returning. However, the key legal distinction is between: - Contracted employees with guaranteed positions - Day-to-day substitutes with no minimum hours guarantee As a day-to-day sub, you should be eligible during breaks if your work history shows irregular assignments. The "reasonable assurance" letter or email from your district likely contains conditional language like "subject to availability of work" or "as needed basis" - this conditional language actually supports your case! When you appeal, highlight these conditional phrases in your district's communication. This proves you don't have true reasonable assurance as defined by unemployment law. Also, have you tried calling EDD directly to explain this misunderstanding? Getting through to them can be challenging but would potentially be faster than the appeal process.

Update: I found my original hiring paperwork from the district and it specifically says work is 'as needed with no guarantee of hours or assignments' - definitely going to include this in my appeal! Thanks everyone for the advice so far.

my cousin works for a diff school district and got unemployment all summer as a sub so it def is possible

One more thing to consider for your appeal - the 'reasonable assurance' rule also depends on whether your work is likely to be substantially the same in the next academic year. If your district is facing budget cuts, reducing classes, or has announced any staffing changes, make sure to mention this as it further weakens their claim that you have reasonable assurance of similar work. Also, keep certifying for benefits every two weeks during your appeal process. If you win, they'll pay you retroactively for all the weeks you certified.

I thought teachers couldn't get unemployment? I always heard school employees are different from regular workers.

I'm dealing with something similar but as a substitute aide, not teacher. Got the same "reasonable assurance" denial even though I'm purely on-call with zero guaranteed hours. Reading through everyone's advice here - especially about the P-B-218 precedent case and highlighting the conditional language in district communications - this is exactly what I needed to see! One question for those who've been through the appeal process: how detailed should I get about my irregular work pattern? I have pay stubs showing I worked 0 hours some weeks, 8 hours others, up to 32 hours occasionally. Should I create a spreadsheet or chart showing this inconsistency, or is just submitting the pay stubs enough evidence? Also super frustrated with the EDD phone system. Been trying to get through for a week with no luck. Definitely going straight to the formal appeal route based on what everyone's shared here.

I'm going through the exact same situation right now with my district! Got denied for "reasonable assurance" even though I'm a day-to-day sub with absolutely no guarantee of work. It's so frustrating because they treat all school employees the same way initially. Reading through all the advice here, I'm definitely going to appeal. The part about highlighting the conditional language in district communications is brilliant - my district's email literally says subs are called "as needed" and "subject to availability." That's not reasonable assurance at all! For anyone else dealing with this, I found it helpful to look up your district's substitute handbook or policy online. Mine explicitly states that substitute positions are "temporary" and "without guarantee of continued employment." Perfect evidence for the appeal! Also wanted to mention - don't let the intimidating language in the denial letter discourage you. From what I'm seeing here, many subs win their appeals because the initial denial system doesn't distinguish between different types of school employees. We just have to fight for what we're entitled to!

Just wanted to add my experience as someone who successfully appealed a similar denial last year. The key thing that helped me win was documenting not just the irregular hours, but also the fact that substitute work is fundamentally different from regular employment. In my appeal letter, I emphasized these points: - No guaranteed minimum hours per week - Work depends entirely on teacher absences (unpredictable) - No benefits or job security - Income varies dramatically month to month - Being on a "list" is not the same as having a job offer I also included a statement from my union representative explaining how substitute positions work in our district. The appeals judge seemed really interested in understanding the day-to-day reality of sub work versus what the automated system assumes about "school employees." One tip: when you get your phone hearing, be ready to explain a typical week. They asked me things like "How do you find out about work?" and "What happens if no teachers call in sick?" Really helped them understand that being available doesn't mean having guaranteed work. The whole process took about 6 weeks but I got full backpay. Don't let them discourage you - substitute teachers have different rights than contracted employees!

I'm going through this exact same situation right now! Filed for unemployment as a substitute teacher last week and just got the denial letter citing "reasonable assurance" under Education Code 1253.3. It's so frustrating because like you said, being on a sub list is NOT a job guarantee. Reading through all these responses is giving me so much hope though. I had no idea there was a specific precedent case (P-B-218) that addresses substitute teachers - definitely going to look that up and include it in my appeal. My district's email asking if I want to stay on the sub list literally says work is "as available" and "based on daily needs." How is that reasonable assurance?? Some days during the school year I'd get called at 6 AM, other weeks I wouldn't get called at all. Starting to gather my documentation now - pay stubs showing the irregular work, the conditional language in district communications, and my original hiring paperwork. This thread has been more helpful than anything I could find on the EDD website. Thank you all for sharing your experiences and not letting them intimidate us into giving up!

I'm a substitute teacher going through this exact same situation right now! Just got my denial letter yesterday and was feeling completely overwhelmed until I found this thread. The amount of detailed, actionable advice here is incredible. What really stands out to me is how many people have successfully won their appeals by focusing on the key distinction between being on a "list" versus having an actual job guarantee. My district sent the same generic email asking if subs want to remain available for next year - it literally says "subject to need and availability" which clearly isn't reasonable assurance! I'm definitely going to appeal and use the strategies mentioned here: documenting irregular work patterns, highlighting conditional language in district communications, and looking up that P-B-218 precedent case. It's so frustrating that EDD's automated system treats all school employees the same way initially, but encouraging to see how many substitute teachers have successfully fought these denials. Thank you all for sharing your experiences and creating such a supportive community around this issue. For anyone else just starting this process - don't let them intimidate you into giving up! The law is on our side as day-to-day subs.

I'm a substitute teacher who just joined this community after getting the same "reasonable assurance" denial from EDD. Reading through everyone's experiences here has been incredibly helpful and reassuring - I had no idea this was such a common issue! My situation is almost identical to what others have described: I work as a day-to-day sub with absolutely no guaranteed hours, some weeks getting zero calls while others I might work 3-4 days. The district's email asking if I want to stay on the sub list for next year literally says assignments are "contingent upon need and availability" - which sounds like the opposite of reasonable assurance to me! I'm definitely going to appeal based on all the great advice shared here. Already started gathering my pay stubs that show the massive inconsistency in work hours, and I found my original hiring paperwork that specifically states substitute positions are "temporary and without guarantee of employment or hours." One question for those who've been through the appeals process: did you need to get any documentation notarized, or were regular documents and pay stubs sufficient? Also, is there a specific format the appeal letter should follow, or can it just be a straightforward explanation of why the denial was incorrect? Thanks to everyone for sharing your experiences and proving that these denials can be successfully fought. It's given me the confidence to appeal instead of just accepting EDD's initial decision!

I'm also a substitute teacher dealing with this exact same issue right now! Just found this community after getting my "reasonable assurance" denial letter and I'm so relieved to see I'm not alone in this fight. My district sent the typical generic email asking if subs want to remain on the list next year, with language like "work assignments depend on daily staffing needs" - how is that reasonable assurance?? During the regular school year, I'd sometimes go 2-3 weeks without a single call, then suddenly work 4 days straight. Zero predictability or guarantee. Reading through all these success stories gives me so much hope. I'm definitely appealing and using the strategies shared here: documenting my irregular pay history, highlighting the conditional language in district communications, and including that P-B-218 precedent case reference. One thing I'm adding to my appeal is a screenshot from our district's online substitute system showing how jobs are posted day-of or night-before when teachers call in sick. It really demonstrates the unpredictable, on-demand nature of substitute work versus having an actual employment contract. Thank you all for sharing your experiences and creating such a supportive space. For any other subs reading this who are feeling defeated by their denial - don't give up! The evidence is clearly on our side that day-to-day substitute work doesn't constitute reasonable assurance under the law.

I'm a substitute teacher who just went through this exact same situation and successfully won my appeal! Got the same "reasonable assurance" denial initially, which was so frustrating since being on a sub list is clearly not a job guarantee. Here's what worked for me in addition to all the great advice already shared: 1. I created a simple calendar showing all the days I was available during the school year but didn't get called - this visual really helped the appeals judge understand how unpredictable sub work is 2. I included a copy of my district's substitute handbook that explicitly states sub positions are "temporary, part-time, and without benefits or guarantee of continued employment" 3. During my phone hearing, I emphasized that I have to actively look for work every single day by checking the system or waiting for calls - this isn't passive employment like a contracted position The whole process took about 7 weeks but I received full backpay once the decision came through. Don't let EDD's initial denial discourage you - their automated system just flags all school employees the same way. As day-to-day subs, we have completely different employment arrangements than contracted teachers. Make sure to file your appeal quickly and keep certifying for benefits during the process. The precedent is clearly on our side! You've got this!