ILNews

COA clarifies unemployment benefits issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals used a case before it as an opportunity to clarify how an employee's eligibility for unemployment benefits should be determined when the employee is discharged for attendance issues.

In John D. Giovanoni II v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 93A02-0806-EX-545, John Giovanoni appealed the Unemployment Insurance Review Board's denial of his application for unemployment benefits. He worked as a pharmacy technician for Clarian and had several absences from work due to a severe medical condition and once because of weather conditions. Clarian had a uniform attendance policy for all employees, which states an employee will be fired following eight violations of the attendance policy within a certain time frame.

Judges Terry Crone and Margret Robb reversed the decision, noting that the Court of Appeals has been split regarding the reasonableness of a no-fault attendance rule. After reviewing relevant caselaw, the majority determined Love v. Heritage House Convalescent Center, 463 N.E.2d 478, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983), provided the sounder model for determining eligibility for unemployment benefits when the employee is fired for attendance issues. Love held that no-fault attendance rules that subject employees to discharge for excused and unexcused absences are per se unreasonable, and an employee can't receive unemployment benefits unless he can show good cause for why he was absent or tardy.

The majority also believed the risk of inconsistent results will be reduced if discharges based on attendance are analyzed under Section d(3), as was done in Love. In the instant case, the board analyzed the issue under Section d(2), which says discharge for just cause includes a knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer; Section d(3) includes unsatisfactory attendance, if the individual can't show good cause for absences or tardiness.

Using Section d(3) as a guide, the majority concluded Giovanoni established good cause for his absences and tardiness and reversed the board's decision.

Judge Elaine Brown dissented, saying it is up to the legislature to change the wording of a statute if it determines it needs to clarify that Section d(2) doesn't apply to attendance issues. Judge Brown would affirm the board's decision based on his violation of Section d(2), because Giovanoni failed to show that section exempted him from being fired.

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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT