ILNews

Judges split in termination ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an opinion involving whether a worker was fired for just cause after multiple excused absences, the majority acknowledged the split in the Indiana Court of Appeals regarding the reasonableness of "no-fault" attendance policies.

In Lisa M. Beckingham v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Cenveo Corp., No. 93A02-0808-EX-771, Lisa Beckingham appealed the Unemployment Insurance Review Board's denial of her application for unemployment benefits. The board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding she had been fired for just cause for violating Cenveo's attendance policy. Cenveo has an excuse-based policy and the company handbook provided that an employee can be fired for excessive excused absences or tardiness within a one-year period. Beckingham had 14 ½ excused absences within one year.

On appeal, she argued the board improperly determined Cenveo fired her for just cause, that the board should have used Indiana Code Section 22-4-15-1-(d)(3) instead of (d)(2) to rule whether she was terminated for just cause, and the company's attendance policy is unreasonable because it subjected her to termination regardless of her reason for absences.

The appellate court addressed the issue of "no-fault" attendance policies in the Jan. 29, 2009, opinion John D. Giovanoni II v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 93A02-0806-EX-545. The majority in that case ruled Love v. Heritage House Convalescent Center, 463 N.E.2d. 478, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983), provided a more sound model for determining eligibility for unemployment benefits when the employee is fired for attendance issues.

But in the instant case, Senior Judge George Hoffman Jr. and Judge Carr Darden held the reasoning set forth in Jeffboat, Inc. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Decision, 464 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984), and Beene v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment and Training Services, 528 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), is the better rationale for determining the reasonableness of an employer's attendance policy. The majority affirmed Beckingham was discharged for just cause under section (d)(2) and that that I.C. Section 22-4-15-1(d) is disjunctive and an attendance issue may be analyzed under section (d)(2) or section (d)(3).

Judge Edward Najam dissented, voting to reverse the board's determination of Beckingham's claims and remand with instructions it consider her claim under (d)(3). Judge Najam wrote he would follow the reasoning of the majority in Giovanoni that termination for unsatisfactory attendance must be analyzed solely under section (d)(3).

The Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development filed a rehearing request in the Giovanoni case March 2.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Politics...
    It seems to me .. the Judge I went before , seemed determined to rule in favor of the Employer from the get go.. I thought this was showing extreme bias.... Politics... Its like they are in a number crunch to as to not pay benefits to employees... Just Saying...

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT