ILNews

Supreme Court upholds unemployment insurance decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana Department of Workforce Development decision denying a woman her claim for unemployment insurance benefits after she was terminated for being unable to perform the required skills of her job.

In Diane Recker v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, and FedEx Trade Networks, No. 93S02-1105-EX-285, the court considered a case involving Diane Recker who worked for FedEx Trade Networks and was required to pass all necessary training in order to take the position. She was repeatedly unable to complete a portion of the training program’s driving test requiring her to back up on a serpentine course and into a parking space. She had to fly to Oklahoma for that test, and on the flight there her ears became “clogged” in a way she believed impacted her ability to successfully complete the test. After she failed to pass the test, FedEx gave Recker the option to resign immediately or take a 30-day unpaid leave of absence. She resigned immediately and sought unemployment insurance benefits but was denied because she voluntarily left her job and did so without good cause. On appeal, an administrative law judge determined that she did not leave voluntarily but wasn’t entitled to benefits because she breached a duty owed to her employer and that justified her termination.

The unanimous court upheld the board’s decision that she was reasonably discharged because of the breach of duty. Using its rationale from Giovanoni v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dept of Workforce Dev., 927 N.E.2d 906, 908-12 (Ind. 2010), the court determined she had “some control” in performing the driving test, and the board didn’t find her clogged-ear defense was significant enough. This wasn’t a demonstrable impediment, and it was reasonable for the board to find that Recker was discharged for just cause and ineligible for benefits, the court ruled.

A footnote in the opinion delves into another topic that has been an issue before the state’s appellate courts – confidential names of parties being used in case names. The court of appeals has disagreed on that issue, and in a lengthy footnote Justice Brent Dickson wrote that information is to be excluded from public access only when requested by a party or person affected by the release of information. That didn’t happen here, so Recker’s name can be used in the appellate court documents.

 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT