ILNews

Judges: early retirement ends unemployment benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of unemployment benefits for an auto worker who accepted an early retirement package after she was laid off.

S.A. worked at Daimler Chrysler from 1999 until February 2008 when she was laid off. Chrysler still paid her some wages and she also received unemployment benefits. S.A. eventually accepted an early retirement package and no longer was an employee in May 2009.

Shortly thereafter, her unemployment benefits were suspended because a claims deputy determined she voluntarily left Chrysler without good cause in connection with the work. An administrative law judge and the Board of Review of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development also concluded that S.A. was ineligible to continue receiving benefits.

In S.A. v. Review Board, No. 93A02-1004-EX-568, S.A. argued that the board erred in determining she left her job without good cause in connection to the work. She claimed she felt pressure to retire because her benefits were running out and she was told there was no chance of her getting back to work and she needed the insurance the retirement would offer.

She also argued that she had been receiving unemployment benefits for 15 months before she took the retirement package and she was already unemployed at the time and accepting the package didn’t change her status.

The appellate court affirmed the board’s decision, finding it properly cited Indiana Code Section 22-4-14-1(c). That section says it does not apply “to a person who elects to retire in connection with a layoff or plant closure and receive pension, retirement, or annuity payments.”

The judges found her case to be similar to York v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 425 N.E.2d 707, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), in which the appellate court held an employee who accepted an early retirement package left his job without good cause in connection with the work. York argued he was forced to retire and by taking the retirement agreement, he had merely mitigated his economic losses.

“Although York predates the addition of subsection (c), we agree with its reasoning; therefore, we affirm the Board’s decision,” wrote Judge Terry Crone.

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT