ILNews

COA sides with man accused of stealing hotdogs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals says a man who was fired for snatching two hotdogs from the company refrigerator is entitled to unemployment benefits. In its opinion, the COA reversed a decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that stated Nolan Koewler’s employer – Dillards – was justified in terminating his employment.

On July 4, 2010, Dillards hosted a cookout, providing hotdogs and hamburgers for its employees. Dock manager Mike Marz had testified that the leftovers were to be saved for Labor Day. But the appeals court found that Marz told employees to put away the food; he did not testify that Koewler heard the food was intended for Labor Day.

“The record reveals that employees had been offered hamburgers and hotdogs for consumption; it does not reveal that the rescission of this offer of celebratory food was in fact communicated to Koewler,” the court wrote.

A day after the cookout, Koewler took two hotdogs from the refrigerator. Marz checked surveillance camera footage, and upon seeing Koewler nab the leftovers, reported him to the store manager.

The appeals court stated that Marz’s testimony in N.K. v. Review Board , No. 93A02-1012-EX-1431 indicates that the “off-limits” hotdogs were those destined for a freezer. However, Koewler and Marz each testified that the hotdogs at issue were retrieved from the refrigerator.

At a meeting with the store manager, Koewler admitted to the incident. A police officer was summoned, and the store manager advised Koewler that he had a choice: Sign a statement that he stole two leftover hotdogs or spend the night in jail. Koewler signed the statement and was fired.

A claims deputy for the department of workforce development had initially found that Koewler was entitled to receive unemployment compensation because he was not discharged for just cause. Dillards appealed. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge affirmed the deputy’s decision, and Dillards then appealed the review board. The board cited Indiana Code Section 22-4-15-1(d) in determining Koewler’s termination was just.

The appeals court held that “just cause,” as defined in Indiana Code Section 22-4-15-1, subsection (d)(9), is: “any breach of duty in connection with work which is reasonably owed an employer by an employee.” Koewler does not deny that he took the hotdogs, but no proof exists to support that he knew doing so was forbidden, the court stated.

Calling the board’s decision “unreasonable” and “contrary to law,” the appeals court reversed.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Dillards Should Be Ashamed
    Dillards is ridiculous and should be ashamed to even fire this gentlemen, particularly in this rough economy. The value of the hotdogs is probably $2 and they want to take this to the Supreme Court. Dillards should br ashamed and the store manager should be fired for being an idiot.
  • Dillards Should Be Ashamed
    Dillards is ridiculous and should be ashamed to even fire this gentlemen, particularly in this rough economy. The value of the hotdogs is probably $2 and they want to take this to the Supreme Court. Dillards should br ashamed and the store manager should be fired for being an idiot.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT