ILNews

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.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT