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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT