Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unemployment Insurance Adjuncts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances HB67 to clarify unemployment 'reasonable assurance' test for adjunct instructors
Summary
HB67 would revise how 'reasonable assurance' is determined for higher-education adjunct instructors seeking unemployment benefits. Supporters characterized the bill as a technical clarification aligning state practice with federal standards; Workforce Solutions flagged a potential, indeterminate increase in claims.
The House Labor, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee voted 7-4 to recommend House Bill 67, a technical change intended to clarify when adjunct and other contingent higher-education instructors are eligible for unemployment insurance between terms.
Steven Curtis, a labor attorney presenting the bill for sponsor Rep. Doreen Garrett (presented by Vice Chair Eleanor Chavez), told the committee the bill substitutes a checklist-style approach for the current multifactor test that courts and administrators use to decide whether an educator has "reasonable assurance" of continued employment. Curtis said the change does not alter the federal standard but aims to give employers, adjunct instructors and Department of Workforce Solutions staff a clearer, simpler mechanism for resolving eligibility questions.
Curtis told members the bill leaves intact the basic statutory framework — which traces to federal unemployment insurance rules on public-employee coverage — but replaces an open-ended weighing of factors (historical patterns of reemployment, reasonable anticipation of reemployment, and notice of eligibility) with five specific items (a–e) that must be met to find reasonable assurance. Curtis said the checklist is intended to reduce inconsistent outcomes in borderline cases for adjuncts and other contingent faculty.
Supporters included Sam McWilliams, an adjunct instructor at the University of New Mexico, who told the committee that adjuncts frequently lack certainty about course assignments and “anything that helps our situation would be very, very useful.” Labor unions including the American Federation of Teachers New Mexico, AFSCME, and the New Mexico Federation of Labor testified in favor of the bill.
Members questioned the fiscal and administrative impact. Multiple committee members noted the Department of Workforce Solutions’ fiscal analysis, which anticipated a possible increase in unemployment claims and requested funding to train staff; Committee members expressed concern that the bill’s language leaves open whether cancellations driven by low enrollment or program changes would be treated as within an institution’s control and therefore disqualifying.
Representative Christina Ortiz moved to give HB67 a do-pass recommendation; Representative Mariana Anaya seconded the motion. Roll call voting produced seven yes votes and four no votes, and the committee reported the bill out favorably with a 7-4 tally.
Why it matters: Higher education institutions increasingly rely on adjunct and contingent faculty to teach courses. The bill’s proponents say a clearer reasonable-assurance test will help adjuncts and administrators make predictable eligibility decisions; critics worry the change could increase unemployment claims or shift costs to institutions and potentially to students through premium or budgetary impacts.
