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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT