ILNews

COA affirms denial of additional unemployment benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman whose unemployment benefits stopped after 26 weeks was not improperly denied an extension because she continued to work a part-time job of about four to eight hours a week, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

In Debbie Mitchell v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, and Midwest Mobile Care, Inc., 93A02-1310-EX-856, the court affirmed the Review Board because Mitchell received benefits when she lost her primary full-time job. When she kept the other job, it became her “normal and customary hours,” so she no longer qualified to receive benefits when she sought an extension.

Mitchell argued that the ruling punished her for continuing with a part-time, on-call position after she lost her primary means of employment, but the panel was not persuaded.

“If she had not maintained part-time employment, she would meet the definition of totally unemployed but would have exhausted her benefits. Having maintained part-time employment, she is neither totally nor partially unemployed and is not entitled to additional benefits,” Judge Margret Robb wrote for the panel. “Mitchell has not been disqualified from receiving benefits due to her part-time work, she is just not entitled to additional benefits because of it. She has been placed in no worse position than a less industrious person.”





 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT