Recker v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Development
958 N.E.2d 1136
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Diane Recker accepted a FedEx parcel courier job contingent on successful completion of mandatory training.
- Recker repeatedly failed the driving-back-up test on a serpentine course; training occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
- FedEx allowed multiple test attempts (two in Oklahoma, one after returning to Indiana).
- After a third failure, FedEx offered resignation or a 30-day unpaid leave with internal transfer opportunities; Recker resigned immediately.
- Recker applied for unemployment benefits; a deputy denied benefits for voluntary quit and no good cause; an ALJ found constructive discharge but just cause discharged.
- The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a breach of duty justifying discharge without fault? | Recker argues lack of willful breach since inability to perform was not intentional. | FedEx contends breach of duty reasonably owed to employer supports just-cause discharge. | Yes; breach of duty can justify discharge without requiring intent. |
| Does Giovanoni’s no-fault analysis apply to breach-of-duty discharges? | Giovanoni should limit benefits if discharge arises from fault-related reasons. | Giovanoni does not control breach-of-duty discharges; totality of circumstances supports ineligibility. | Giovanoni’s framework does not bar ineligibility; Recker’s lack of a demonstrable impediment is irrelevant to breach-of-duty discharge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giovanoni v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 927 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2010) (no-fault attendance rule and totality of circumstances for benefits)
- Hehr v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp't Sec. Div., 534 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (breach of duty must be understood as a reasonable employee would view it)
- Byrd v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp't Sec. Div., 469 N.E.2d 463 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (fundamental job duties understood as part of the employment)
- McClain v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind.1998) (no-fault vs. fault considerations; later refined by Giovanoni)
- McHugh v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 842 N.E.2d 436 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (breach of duty cases prior to Giovanoni)
- Doughty v. Review Bd. of Dep't of Workforce Dev., 784 N.E.2d 524 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (intentions in breach of duty contexts prior to Giovanoni)