A Letter of Reasonable Assurance (LORA) is a formal communication, typically issued by an educational institution, informing an employee they are expected to return to work following an academic break. This document functions as an official statement of the employer’s intent to offer continued employment in the subsequent academic period. The LORA is a procedural mechanism used by educational service agencies to manage their workforce. It is not a contract or a guarantee of future employment, but rather a declaration that a position will be available when classes resume.
The Core Purpose and Legal Framework
The primary purpose of the LORA is to prevent educational employees from collecting unemployment insurance benefits during scheduled, temporary breaks, such as summer vacation or winter recess. The underlying legislation is the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), specifically 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(6)(A). This federal requirement, often called the “between and within terms denial” provision, assumes that an educational employee is not unemployed if they have a commitment to return to work. States must adhere to this framework to receive federal funding for their unemployment compensation programs, leading to state laws that mirror the federal structure.
The intent is to protect the state’s unemployment trust fund from claims filed by employees who have a high expectation of continued employment. By issuing a LORA, the employer provides proof to the State Employment Security Agency (SESA) that the employee’s separation is temporary, allowing the state to deny benefits.
Defining the Reasonable Assurance Standard
The assurance provided in the letter must meet the “reasonable assurance” test to be considered valid. For the letter to be effective, it must assure the employee that they will return to a position that is “substantially similar” to their previous one. This means the job’s terms, conditions, and wages must not be significantly less than what the employee received in the prior academic period.
A slight difference in schedule or location may not invalidate the assurance. However, a substantial reduction in pay, hours, or a demotion to a position with drastically different duties would likely render the assurance unreasonable. The assurance must represent a bona fide offer for the next academic term. If the terms of the new position are conditional on factors outside the employee’s control, such as budget approval or uncertain student enrollment numbers, the assurance may be challenged as unreasonable.
Who Is Affected by the Letter
Employees who receive a LORA generally fall into two categories defined by their job function: instructional staff and non-instructional staff. Federal law dictates different application requirements for these groups, though state laws govern the specific implementation. A LORA is typically issued to employees who do not have a formal, multi-year contract guaranteeing their return.
Instructional Staff
Instructional staff includes those in a professional capacity, such as teachers, professors, adjunct faculty, and employees in a research or principal administrative role. The federal denial provision for this group is generally required for all states to implement if a reasonable assurance exists. For example, a teacher with a LORA for the fall semester will be denied unemployment benefits during the summer break, provided the terms of the new position are substantially similar. The focus is on the nature of the duties performed, not just the job title, to determine if the staff member is performing professional services.
Non-Instructional Staff
Non-instructional staff, sometimes called classified or non-professional employees, includes support personnel such as bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and administrative aides. For this group, federal law makes the denial of unemployment benefits optional for states to adopt. Consequently, the application of the LORA and the denial of benefits for non-instructional staff vary significantly by state. Educational institutions must check their specific state’s unemployment code to determine if issuing a LORA to these employees will prevent an unemployment claim during a break.
The Direct Impact on Unemployment Benefits
The direct consequence of receiving a valid LORA is disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits during the intervening period between academic terms. This denial applies to the customary period between two academic years or terms, as well as regular holiday recesses and vacation periods within a single term. The educational service agency informs the state UI agency that the employee has a reasonable expectation of returning to work, which triggers the denial of benefits.
If an employee files a claim during the summer break, the state agency contacts the employer to confirm the LORA’s existence. Upon confirmation of a valid LORA, the employee’s claim will be denied for the duration of the break. An exception exists if the employee is not provided a LORA, or if the assurance is later rescinded and the job does not materialize at the start of the new term. In this scenario, the employee may be eligible for benefits, potentially retroactively, assuming they meet all other eligibility requirements.
Challenging the Letter and Appealing Denied Benefits
Employees have the right to challenge a denial of benefits based on a LORA if they believe the assurance received is not “reasonable.” A challenge is appropriate if the employee can demonstrate that the terms of the offered employment are substantially less than the prior position, such as a significant pay cut or a change from a full-time to a part-time role. The first step in challenging the denial is to file for unemployment benefits, even after receiving the LORA.
When the claim is denied, the employee must file an appeal with the state unemployment agency, often leading to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). During the appeal process, the employee must present evidence that the assurance was invalid. This evidence could include documentation of reduced wages, a change in job duties, or proof that the offer was contingent on unmet conditions. Employees should review their state’s appeal procedures immediately upon receiving the initial denial to ensure all deadlines are met.