P & P Home Services, LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Cynthia Hutcherson
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 134
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- P & P Home Services, LLC employed C.H. as an in-home caregiver from Nov. 25, 2013; her last day providing services to a particular consumer was Dec. 31, 2014.
- On Jan. 8, 2015 P & P informed C.H. that that consumer had ended the business relationship; P & P later requested updated TB test and vehicle registration and told C.H. she needed medication-administration training.
- C.H. inquired about other (second-shift) assignments on Jan. 21, 2015; P & P indicated availability but did not assign a new consumer and later marked her separation date as Feb. 15, 2015.
- A claims deputy found C.H. eligible for unemployment benefits; an ALJ reversed, concluding she voluntarily quit without good cause; the Review Board reversed the ALJ and found the separation involuntary.
- The Review Board treated P & P as a temporary staffing agency and concluded that the employer–employee relationship ended with the termination of the consumer assignment on Jan. 8, 2015.
- The Court of Appeals determined the employment relationship was not the same as the temporary-placement scenario relied on by the Review Board and remanded for factual findings on whether C.H. voluntarily quit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (P & P) | Defendant's Argument (C.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Review Board erred treating P & P–C.H. relationship as temporary so that consumer’s termination ended employment | P & P: relationship functioned as ongoing employment but argues the separation resulted from employee inaction/requirements and thus voluntary | C.H.: relationship resembled temporary assignment; consumer’s termination ended the employment relationship, so separation was involuntary | Court: Reversed Review Board — relationship was not the same as the temporary-placement model relied on; remand needed for factual determination whether C.H. voluntarily quit |
| Whether C.H. voluntarily left employment without good cause | P & P: failure to provide required documents/training and lack of assignments shows C.H. effectively quit | C.H.: she did not initiate separation and should be eligible for benefits | Court: Left question of voluntariness unresolved; remanded for factual findings in light of communications and surrounding circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Cintemp, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Review Bd., 717 N.E.2d 988 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (temporary-staffing placement ends relationship at assignment’s conclusion)
- Giovanoni v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 927 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2010) (Unemployment Act’s purpose is to aid those out of work through no fault of their own)
- Chrysler Group, LLC v. Review Bd., 960 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2012) (framework for classifying Review Board findings: basic facts, ultimate facts, conclusions of law)
- K.S. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 33 N.E.3d 1195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Review Board fact findings generally conclusive on appeal)