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

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT