Agency erred in adjusting experience account rates after merger

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered the Department of Workforce Development to reinstate the original contribution rates for unemployment insurance experience accounts of a parent company and its subsidiaries. The DWD should not have combined the accounts and adjusted the rates following a merger.

Boulder Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Xerox Corp., merged with Affiliated Computer Services Inc. BAC acquired equity interests in various subsidiaries of ACS, 26 of which operate in Indiana, and those entities became subsidiaries of BAC. Those Indiana subsidiaries kept their own employees, had their own unemployment insurance accounts that were separate from ACS’s account, and each still operated as an individual legal entity.

After BAC reported the merger to the DWD, the agency determined BAC became the “successor employer” of the subsidiaries under state law and combined the experience accounts of all the subsidiaries with BAC. This resulted in a higher contribution rate of 3.7 percent and a higher combined unemployment insurance tax for the companies. The DWD also assessed a penalty against BAC for failure to timely pay the appropriate fees.

A liability administrative law judge within the DWD upheld the determination BAC was the successor employer to the subsidiaries, citing I.C. 22-4-10-6 and 22-4-11-7.

In Boulder Acquisition Corp. (n/k/a Affiliated Computer Services, LLC), et al. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, 93A02-1202-EX-127, BAC argued that it did not acquire “the organization, trade or business, or substantially all the assets” of each of the subsidiaries, as defined in statute. The DWD claimed that I.C. 22-4-11.5-7 applies, so the experience accounts should have been recalculated and combined. The agency admitted that the relationship between the subsidiaries and its parent company didn’t change with the merger, but believed that the account setup prior to the merger was an error that it merely corrected once it learned of the merger.

This issue is one of first impression in Indiana. The Court of Appeals found guidance in Franklin Electric, although that decision doesn’t govern the COA’s interpretation of I.C. 22-4-10-6(a) because of Franklin Electric’s narrow holding.  

The judges concluded that BAC did not acquire the organization, trade or business, or substantially all the assets of any of the subsidiaries, nor did the subsidiaries transfer all or a portion of their trade or business to BAC. The subsidiaries remained separate legal entities and can be separate employers from their parent company.

The subsidiaries should be permitted to maintain their own employment experience accounts, Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote. She noted the court’s decision remains the same when interpreting I.C. 22-4-11.5-7.

The judges remanded for the DWD to adjust BAC’s and the subsidiaries respective experience accounts and refund any overpayment by BAC and/or the subsidiaries.



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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.