James Broxton v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, the Department of Indiana Workforce Development, and Sodexo
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 4
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Broxton was employed by Sodexo as a cook at St. Joseph’s College since 2008; summers are on-call with a Tuesday call-in to check for work; he could be unpaid if no work is available during summer break.
- In 2012, Broxton was on-call from May 7 to August 18 and was not called to work during that period.
- Broxton had previously received unemployment benefits in summers prior to 2012.
- An August 13, 2012 claims deputy denied benefits due to a vacation week without remuneration under a contract or regular policy.
- An ALJ later affirmed ineligibility based on a summer vacation period treated as a reduction in hours under policy and practice.
- The Review Board adopted the ALJ findings but denied benefits further, interpreting 22-4-3-5 and finding Broxton’s summer period an unpaid vacation with reasonable assurance of return; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice provision under 22-4-3-5(c) | Broxton argues the Board erred by construing notice requirements. | Sodexo argues the statute grants department discretion; no mandatory employer notice is required. | Statute grants department discretion; no mandatory employer notice required. |
| Denial of benefits under 22-4-3-5 vacation week | Broxton contends the summer period was not a vacation week. | Board found summer period an unpaid vacation with reasonable assurance of return. | Board reasonable; Broxton denied benefits under 22-4-3-5. |
| On-call exception under 22-4-3-3 | Broxton claims he was totally unemployed due to no on-call work. | Board found he was not regularly on-call; exception inapplicable. | Rule not applicable; no employment under 22-4-3-3. |
| Conflict with other Act provisions | Broxton asserts inconsistency with other provisions. | Arguments waived or unpersuasive; Board interpretation stands. | No reversible conflict found; arguments waived. |
| Policy/purpose of the Act | Broxton argues interpretation undermines unemployment protection. | Board’s interpretation prevents subsidizing guaranteed vacation return; consistent with policy. | Interpretation not unreasonable; aligns with public welfare goals. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Bridge Co. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 121 Ind. App. 576 (1951) (shutdowns vs. vacation periods distinguished; benefits may be allowed in inventory shutdowns, not vacations (historical context))
- Adams v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 237 Ind. 63, 143 N.E.2d 564 (1957) (shutdowns during vacation with reasonable assurance of continued employment not eligible for benefits)
- LaFief v. Indiana Supreme Court, 888 N.E.2d 184 (2008) (contractual mandatory vacations or shutdowns not eligible if reasonable assurance of return)
- Two Market Square Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Bd., 679 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. 1997) (interpretation of administrative regulations given deference when reasonable)
- McClain v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314 (1998) (standard of review for Review Board findings (substantial evidence))
- Doughty v. Review Bd. of Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 784 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (waiver/arguments for administrative review considerations)