Court rules on early retirement benefits case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Employees who accept early retirement even in the worst economic times aren’t entitled to continued unemployment assistance, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

A 2-1 ruling came from the appellate court in C.G. LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Devel., et al., 93A02-1004-EX-441, involving an economically battered auto parts company that instituted an early retirement plan for both working and non-working employees at factories in Indiana and nationwide.

The company began reducing its workforce and laying off workers in 2008 and instituted the voluntary termination program to those who’d worked in late 2008 and early 2009. Those who accepted resigned from CG and relinquished their recall and seniority rights. Additionally, some received variations of a package including lump some payout amounts, a vehicle voucher, and six months of continuing health insurance coverage.

Some of those workers had been actively working while others were previously laid off, and some still received benefits at the time the program was offered. After taking the early retirement offer, some employees were denied unemployment benefits when they later applied, and previously laid-off workers who’d been receiving benefits found their benefits were cut off.

They appealed to an administrative law judge who determined that employees who’d been on indefinite layoff when joining the early retirement program were still entitled to unemployment benefits, but those who were on temporary layoff or were actively working at the time could not receive benefits. Both sides appealed.

The review board rejected the ALJ’s distinction between actively working employees and those laid off for purposes of eligibility for benefits, determining that all lacked good cause to voluntarily leave when they took the early retirement and resigned. The board concluded that all of the employees remained eligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to Indiana Code 22-4-14-1(c).

But the Court of Appeals majority disagreed, reversing and remanding the case saying that workers shouldn’t be able to receive continued benefits. Senior Judge John Sharpnack and Judge Elaine Brown specifically decided that the workers didn’t have good cause to voluntarily leave their employment because there weren’t specific threats or plans of future plant closings or layoffs, despite the overall economic climate and uncertainty facing the auto industry.

The majority relied heavily on York v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 425 N.E. 2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) as helpful guidance in constituting Indiana Code 22-3-14-1(c), which specifically applies to those who elect to retire in connection with a layoff or plant closure and receive compensation for that. That court held that employees who left due to risk of possible future changes but not direct threat of layoff were not entitled to benefits.

Judge James Kirsch dissented, writing that he believes the majority decision to deny unemployment compensation benefits to these workers goes against legislative directive and ignores what many face in these economic times.

“The Great Recession has had a catastrophic effect on this country and this state. Few, if any, industries were harder hit than automotive manufacturing, and the thousands of workers affected are unemployed through no fault of their own,” the judge wrote. “To say that the workers who accepted EVTEP retired for personal reasons is to ignore economic reality. This economic reality was marked by layoffs and plant closings … those layoffs and plant closings drove the decision of the claimants in this case to accept EVTEP.”

Judge Kirsch wrote that he would defer to the board’s judgment and expertise in employment matters and affirm its decision in all respects.


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. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

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

  3. 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?

  4. 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"

  5. 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?