WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 67

An Act amending Title 68 (Real and Personal Property) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in management of the condominium, providing for outdoor solar access for drying clothes; in management of cooperatives, providing for outdoor solar access for drying clothes; and, in management of planned community, providing for outdoor solar access for drying clothes.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Lisa Borowski and 17 co-sponsors

HB 67 uses a five-part test to determine reasonable rehire assurance, denying unemployment benefits to higher-ed staff between terms when a valid offer meets all criteria.

Referred to Urban Affairs & Housing
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 67

HB 67 — "Reasonable Assurance for Higher Ed Employees" — Bill Summary

Status: Action postponed indefinitely (most recent status provided).
Primary subject: Education — Postsecondary employers & employees (unemployment insurance / “reasonable assurance” between academic terms).
Sponsor (per fiscal note): Garratt. Analyst: Jorgensen.

Purpose / Intent

The bill amends the statutory test used to determine whether employees of educational institutions are eligible for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits during breaks between academic terms. It replaces a vague “reasonable assurance” standard with a prescribed five‑part test intended to clarify when a higher‑education employee has sufficient assurance of rehire so that UI benefits are disallowed.

Key provisions

HB 67 establishes a five‑element test for determining “reasonable assurance” of reemployment between academic terms. A claimant is considered to have reasonable assurance (and therefore generally ineligible for UI for the break period) only if all of the following are true:

  1. The educational institution has made an offer of employment (written, oral, or implied) for the next academic term or year.
  2. The offer was made by a person with actual authority to make employment offers.
  3. The offered position is substantially the same as the prior position, or is a higher classification.
  4. The offered compensation is at least 90% of what the claimant earned in the current academic year/term.
  5. The offer is not contingent on factors within the institution’s control — examples provided include course programming, the allocation of available funding, final course offerings, program changes, and facility availability.

The bill aligns this definition with federal requirements under 26 U.S.C. (citations referenced in analysis), by making the criteria more specific and verifiable.

Who is affected

  • Postsecondary employees (faculty, adjuncts, temporary/term staff) — it changes UI eligibility between terms.
  • Public and private higher‑education institutions — may face more UI claims if offers fail the new test.
  • Workforce Solutions Department (or state UI agency) — will administer and adjudicate claims under new statutory standard.
  • Potential indirect effect on UI insurance experience ratings and employer UI premiums.

Fiscal and administrative impacts

  • No appropriation included; any increased costs must come from existing budgets.
  • Workforce Solutions Department estimated modest one‑time/first‑year costs (~$50,000) for staff training, program administration, and IT updates.
  • Major fiscal impact likely borne by educational institutions if the change increases paid UI claims and leads to higher employer UI premiums; the magnitude is indeterminate.
  • Administrative effects: need for agency training, potential increase in appeals/adjudications, and IT modifications to process new determinations.

Implementation / Timing

  • The bill text did not specify an effective date; as drafted it would take effect 90 days after adjournment (the fiscal analysis estimated an effective date such as June 20, 2025).
  • Current procedural status provided by the requester: action postponed indefinitely.

Notable concerns / ambiguities

  • Institutions (e.g., UNM) raised questions about the phrase “factors within the institution’s control” (e.g., under‑enrollment-driven class cancellations or budget rescissions) — interpretation of this clause will materially affect outcomes and potential UI costs.
  • The specificity of the five‑part test reduces discretion but may increase litigation or appeals over factual disputes (e.g., whether an offer was “implied,” who had “actual authority,” or whether duties/pay are “substantially the same”).

Summary prepared from legislative fiscal analyses and committee materials (House Bill 67 — Reasonable Assurance for Higher Ed Employees). If you want, I can produce a side‑by‑side comparison showing how the bill’s five‑part test differs from current statutory language and relevant federal guidance.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.