D.B. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Department of Workforce Development, and Anderson Transit System, Inc.
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 554
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Claimants are employees or owners of Anderson Transit, which contracts with Anderson Public Schools for bus services.
- Anderson Transit operated 181 days per year; no operation during school breaks.
- Employees were given advance schedule and reasonable assurance of employment after breaks.
- Historically, employees received unemployment benefits during summer breaks; owners sought benefits too.
- In 2011-2012, the Department denied benefits for the summer break; Board consolidated appeals and denied claims.
- Board relied on amended I.C. 22-4-3-5 to exclude vacation weeks from unemployment eligibility, if a reasonable assurance of employment exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of 22-4-3-5 notice provisions | Board’s interpretation voids vacancy notice requirement | No rule needed; statute allows effect without notice policy | No error; notice provision not required for effect of subsection (a) to apply. |
| Definition of 'vacation' in 22-4-3-5 | Vacation broad; should align with layoff concept | Vacation broad but consistent with long-standing practice | Board reasonable; not unreasonable to define vacation as in policy context. |
| Relation to seasonal employment provisions (seasonal work limits) | Board's reading nullifies seasonal protections | Reading aligns with 22-4-14-7 and seasonal limits | Not unreasonable; consistent with seasonal-education provisions. |
| No-fault/totality-of-circumstances approach under Act’s purposes | Absence of work due to school scheduling was no fault | Totality shows voluntary employment with knowledge of schedule | Claimants not unemployed through no fault of their own; affirmed denial of benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana State Univ. v. LaFief, 888 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2008) (vacation periods; but entitlement requires continued employment after vacation)
- Adams v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 143 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. 1957) (mandatory shutdowns; no entitlement absent vacation pay)
- Indianapolis Pub. Schs. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 473 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (holiday recess exclusion for school employees)
- Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 960 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2012) (liberal construction; favor unemployed; narrow exceptions)
- Giovanoni v. Review Bd., 927 N.E.2d 906, 927 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2010) (no-fault attendance individualized analysis; unemployment through no fault of own)