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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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/

ADVERTISEMENT