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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT