ILNews

Taking unauthorized courses online gets displaced worker booted from TAA program

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A displaced worker’s enrollment in online classes without permission is grounds for dismissal from the Trade Adjustment Assistance training program, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Kevin Perry v. Unemployment Insurance Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development UI Claims Adjudication Center, 93A02-1208-EX-649, the COA affirmed the findings and conclusions of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development.

Perry qualified for the TAA program after being laid off from his job at Columbus Components in June 2009. He subsequently enrolled in the accounting program at Ivy Tech Community College.

Once he started at Ivy Tech, Perry requested he be allowed to take his courses online for the spring, summer and fall 2012 semesters. His request was denied, and he was given verbal and written warnings that modifying his training plan without permission could put his benefits at risk. However, Perry made no attempt to change his registration.

Consequently, the DWD removed Perry from the training program because he modified his education plan without prior approval.

Perry appealed, disputing the conclusion that his enrollment in the online courses constituted a change in his training that required authorization.

The COA made a distinction that the issue is not whether online coursework is permissible under the TAA program but whether Perry was eligible to continue to participate in the TAA program after he deviated from the approved plan without authorization.

“Here, the evidence supports the findings, and the findings support the conclusion, that Perry deviated from his approved training program without prior authorization,” Judge Edward Najam Jr. wrote. “Thus, we cannot say that the Review Board erred when it affirmed his termination from the TAA program.”  

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT