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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT