ILNews

Judges split on approving high-cost retraining tuition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals couldn’t agree on whether a laid-off man’s request for training at an expensive college should be approved.

R.D. worked as a machinist in Bloomington earning nearly $25 an hour. He was laid off and decided he wanted to pursue training under the Trade Act of 1974 at the Art Institute of Indianapolis. He would obtain a degree in graphic arts in print and web in 18 months at a cost of more than $56,000.

The Indiana Department of Workforce Development denied his request based on its cost and noted that he could attend Ivy Tech Indianapolis and receive similar training at a lower cost. The Administrative Law Judge hearing the appeal found the programs to be substantially similar and denied R.D.’s application to attend the Art Institute based on cost. The Review Board affirmed.

After examining the history and purpose of the Trade Act, Judges Paul Mathias and Edward Najam reversed because, based on the evidence, the training R.D. would receive at the Art Institute as compared to Ivy Tech was not similar.

Although nearly two-thirds cheaper in tuition, the program at Ivy Tech allowed for only studying print or web design. R.D. designated evidence that graduates of the Art Institute have a placement rate of more than 78 percent and he could get a full-time job at a salary of approximately $69,000. There was no evidence presented regarding Ivy Tech’s placement and graduates tend to start out at $9 an hour.

One goal of the Trade Act is to get people employed making at least 80 percent of what they were before, wrote Judge Mathias in R.D. v. Review Board, No. 93A02-1005-EX-559. Another precondition for approval of training under the act is that there must to be a reasonable expectation of employment after completing training.

The act says that training may not be approved at one provider, when all costs considered, the training is substantially similar in quality, content, and results at a lower-cost provider with a similar time frame. The majority found, unlike the ALJ, that the two programs are not substantially similar in quality, content, and results, and they don’t even result in the same degree. The majority reversed the denial of R.D.’s request to retrain at the Art Institute.

Chief Judge John Baker dissented because the purpose of the act is to train the highest amount of people at the lowest reasonable cost. Three people could get degrees at Ivy Tech for the cost of attending the Art Institute. Even if R.D. had to get two separate degrees from Ivy Tech to have training in web and print design, it would still be significantly less than his tuition for the Art Institute.

“When considering the purposes of the Trade Act, namely, to provide workers with training at the lowest reasonable cost that will lead to employment and result in training opportunities for the largest number of adversely affected workers, I cannot agree that R.D. has successfully demonstrated that the Review Board’s decision was unreasonable in denying his application for funding to attend the Art Institute,” he wrote. “In short, R.D.’s request for training at the Art Institute does not satisfy the ‘lowest cost’ requirement of 20 C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6).”
 

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

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. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  2. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  3. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

  4. If our State Government would sue for their rights to grow HEMP like Kentucky did we would not have these issues. AND for your INFORMATION many medical items are also made from HEMP. FOOD, FUEL,FIBER,TEXTILES and MEDICINE are all uses for this plant. South Bend was built on Hemp. Our states antiquated fear of cannabis is embarrassing on the world stage. We really need to lead the way rather than follow. Some day.. we will have freedom in Indiana. And I for one will continue to educate the good folks of this state to the beauty and wonder of this magnificent plant.

  5. Put aside all the marijuana concerns, we are talking about food and fiber uses here. The federal impediments to hemp cultivation are totally ridiculous. Preposterous. Biggest hemp cultivators are China and Europe. We get most of ours from Canada. Hemp is as versatile as any crop ever including corn and soy. It's good the governor laid the way for this, regrettable the buffoons in DC stand in the way. A statutory relic of the failed "war on drugs"

ADVERTISEMENT