ILNews

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.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT