ILNews

Unemployment checks no longer part of summer break, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding that an addition to the state’s statute did not change the intent of the law, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that school bus drivers in Anderson were rightly denied their unemployment checks.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation in D.B., et al v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Department of Workforce Development and Anderson Transit System, Inc., 93A02-1301-EX-71.

For several years, school bus drivers, who are owners or employees of Anderson Transit, and contracted with Anderson Public Schools had been able to apply for and receive unemployment insurance during summer breaks.

However, at the end of the 2011-2012 school year, the Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development denied the applications on the grounds that changes to statutory language made the drivers ineligible for payments. In particular, the board found that the school system’s yearly summer break constituted a vacation and that the drivers had “reasonable assurance” their jobs would return when classes restarted, so they did not meet the requirements for unemployment compensation.

During legislative sessions in 2011 and 2012, the Indiana General Assembly added and amended Indiana Code 22-4-3-5 which dealt with the definition of unemployment.

The drivers argued, in part, that the board was construing the vacation provisions in the amended statute too broadly. They asserted that previous decisions from the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court have held that unpaid shutdowns, like the one the drivers experienced every summer, was a layoff and therefore compensable under state law.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. It noted that even before the enactment of I.C. 22-4-3-5, Indiana law recognized that a mandatory vacation or shutdown did not entitle the employees to unemployment checks. Although the Legislature enacted a law that seemed to modify common law by statute, the appeals court stated it presumed the General Assembly was aware of the common law and did not intend to change it more than the new provisions allowed.
 

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