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.


  • 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

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?