Acupuncture clinic fails to prove point before COA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An employee at an Indiana acupuncture and yoga facility who was repeated screamed at by the owner had good cause for quitting and is thus entitled to unemployment benefits, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Friday.

East Wind Acupuncture Inc. case manager and yoga instructor Elly Lesnick quit her job at the facility after six years due to owner Laura Zaranski’s multiple instances of screaming at Lesnick. Zaranski berated Lesnick for not helping train an employee, called and screamed at her on the phone during Lesnick’s personal physical therapy appointment, and later screamed “I don’t care what the f--- you do,” during a discussion in March 2016 about taking time off for physical therapy.

Lesnick quit several days later, citing Zaranski’s repeated screaming. She sought unemployment benefits, which the administrative law judge granted, finding the working conditions to be unreasonable and unfair enough that a reasonably prudent person would be compelled to quit.

East Wind appealed, and the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development affirmed, leading to East Wind’s appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The judges found no error, despite East Wind’s claims, that the review board erred when it denied the company’s attempt to submit additional evidence to the review board. East Wind had notice and opportunity to respond fully to Lesnick’s claims before the ALJ, but did not submit the addition evidence it sought to bring before the review board, Judge Edward Najam wrote.

The COA found the review board’s judgment is supported by the record, noting Zaranski screamed at Lesnick at least three times in less than four months, and even after Lesnick asked Zaranski not to scream at her.

“In sum, the evidence shows that Zaranski’s treatment of Lesnick was not confirmed to a single incident but manifested an habitual pattern of conduct,” Najam wrote.

The case is East Wind Acupuncture, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Elly A. Lesnick, 93A02-1608-EX-1790.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.