ILNews

College cook not erroneously denied unemployment benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A cook at St. Joseph’s College in Rensselaer couldn’t convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that he was entitled to unemployment benefits for the summer of 2012.

James Broxton works full time for Sodexo at the school as a cook from August through May; in the other months, he is “on call” and must call in each week to see if work is available. He was never called in during the summer of 2012 and filed a claim for unemployment benefits. He received benefits in prior summers, but the 2012 claim was denied after it was determined he was on a “vacation week mandated by the employer.”

The Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development concluded Broxton wasn’t entitled to benefits due to I.C. 22-4-3-5, which denies benefits to certain employees on a “vacation week” without remuneration pursuant to a contract or regular policy.

Broxton argued the review board improperly determined that his employer was not required to give notice under 22-4-3-5(c). This section is inapplicable if an employer fails to comply with a department rule or policy regarding filing of notice … arising from the vacation period, but the department has no rules or policies requiring employers to file notice.

“[T]he statute merely requires an employer to comply with the Department’s rule or policy; it does not specify the content of the rule or policy. Given the Department’s substantial discretion, we conclude that Broxton’s argument regarding the notice provisions of Indiana Code Section 22-4-3-5(c) fails,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote in James Broxton v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, the Department of Indiana Workforce Development, and Sodexo, 93A02-1301-EX-79.

“The Review Board’s determination that Broxton was on an unpaid ‘vacation week’ because of Sodexo’s regular vacation policy and practice and had a reasonable assurance of employment after the vacation period ended is reasonable. Based on the factors set out by the Department, we cannot say that the Review Board erred when it determined that Broxton was ineligible for unemployment benefits due to Indiana Code Section 22-4-3-5.”
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT