Since 1974, workers displaced from their jobs because of foreign trade can apply for government assistance to obtain additional training so they can get a new job. Such retraining must be “suitable.” But what’s “suitable” for a particular employee, especially a professional worker with long years of experience and a college education? The answer, according to the N.C. Court of Appeals, doesn’t include an additional master’s degree.

William Wilder was laid off by Lucent Technology when the company closed its offices in Research Triangle Park. He was able to obtain a position with the company in Massachusetts, but he was laid off again a year later.

Despite having an undergraduate degree in engineering, a master’s in computer science, and 20 years experience in the telecommunications industry, Wilder was unable to find a job that came close to matching the $80,000 to $100,000 he made at Lucent. Wilder applied to the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina for Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits. Specifically, he wanted the TAA program to pay for his getting an additional master’s degree in mathematics at UNC-Greensboro. The ESC, which administers the TAA in North Carolina for the federal government, said no.

Wilder appealed the agency’s decision to the courts.

There are six criteria that an applicant who wants to have his training funded through TAA must meet. One is “suitability,” which was at the core of the dispute.

The U.S. Department of Labor has this to say about the suitability and cost of training:

“The 1988 Amendments clearly provide that State administering agencies shall approve training for individual workers at the lowest reasonable cost which will lead to employment and will result in training opportunities for the largest number of adversely affected workers. This means that State administering agencies should avoid approving training for occupations that require an extraordinarily high skill level relative to the worker’s current skills level and for which total costs of training, including transportation and subsistence, are excessively high.”

The Court of Appeals held that the ESC acted properly in rejecting Wilder’s TAA claim.

“After careful review of the governing statute and regulations, we agree that, in light of the goal of providing training opportunities for the largest number of adversely affected workers at the lowest reasonable cost, an individual who already possesses a marketable professional degree bears a heavy burden to establish that an additional professional degree is suitable,” wrote Judge Robert Hunter for the court.

“We therefore conclude that the ESC may, after application of the governing criteria, determine that a second professional degree is not suitable training for an individual.

“Here, the ESC found that petitioner had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from the United States Naval Academy and a master’s degree in computer science from California Polytechnical State University, which the ESC characterized as a “marketable master[’]s degree.” Further, the ESC found that petitioner had 21 years of experience in the telecommunications field. Based on these findings, the ESC concluded that a second master’s degree in mathematics for petitioner “was not suitable for the intent of the program.”

The N.C. Court of Appeals also cited a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that came to a similar conclusion.

The case is Wilder v. Employment Sec. Comm’n of N.C., (04-1520)
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/041520-1.htm

Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.