Judges: early retirement ends unemployment benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of unemployment benefits for an auto worker who accepted an early retirement package after she was laid off.

S.A. worked at Daimler Chrysler from 1999 until February 2008 when she was laid off. Chrysler still paid her some wages and she also received unemployment benefits. S.A. eventually accepted an early retirement package and no longer was an employee in May 2009.

Shortly thereafter, her unemployment benefits were suspended because a claims deputy determined she voluntarily left Chrysler without good cause in connection with the work. An administrative law judge and the Board of Review of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development also concluded that S.A. was ineligible to continue receiving benefits.

In S.A. v. Review Board, No. 93A02-1004-EX-568, S.A. argued that the board erred in determining she left her job without good cause in connection to the work. She claimed she felt pressure to retire because her benefits were running out and she was told there was no chance of her getting back to work and she needed the insurance the retirement would offer.

She also argued that she had been receiving unemployment benefits for 15 months before she took the retirement package and she was already unemployed at the time and accepting the package didn’t change her status.

The appellate court affirmed the board’s decision, finding it properly cited Indiana Code Section 22-4-14-1(c). That section says it does not apply “to a person who elects to retire in connection with a layoff or plant closure and receive pension, retirement, or annuity payments.”

The judges found her case to be similar to York v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 425 N.E.2d 707, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), in which the appellate court held an employee who accepted an early retirement package left his job without good cause in connection with the work. York argued he was forced to retire and by taking the retirement agreement, he had merely mitigated his economic losses.

“Although York predates the addition of subsection (c), we agree with its reasoning; therefore, we affirm the Board’s decision,” wrote Judge Terry Crone.


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?