Just a follow up on a post from this past March when I had the opportunity to argue a case in front of the Indiana Supreme Court. The Court issued its opinion today, and I’m pleased to report that my client was on the winning side.(pdf) My description back then:
[B]asically, it had to do with whether an employee was discharged for just cause or not. If so, the employee is not entitled to unemployment benefits. If not, the employee is. The primary wrinkle for the Supreme Court had to do with the fact that IC 22-4-15-1(d) has a number of examples of ‘just cause’ for termination. The Court of Appeals felt like the example selected by the Review Board was not well supported. I made the argument that even if that particular example wasn’t well supported, some of the others were. The Court of Appeals said they couldn’t look to any other example other than the one chosen by the Review Board. I said they could and asked the Supreme Court to say so as well.
The Court agreed with my argument that an appellate court is permitted to affirm a finding of just cause by the Review Board under an alternate legal basis, not analyzed by the Review Board, so long as the findings of fact by the Review Board support that alternate legal basis.
Good for you and your client……for the court to have ruled otherwise would have essentially said that the review board’s decision to pick and choose from among several examples in the statute was essentially conclusive and not subject to judicial review. But as a point of interest, was there an issue as to whether or not the other examles had been the basis of argument before the board, and if not, could not then be raised on appeal?
Isn’t the point of agency’s findings to enter findings based upon facts submitted. It seems to me allowing a reviewing court to find other bases than that found by the agency sets up the court as a “super administrative” agency.
The court is not looking at a general judgement but specific findings. I will have to read this case and think about it.
I think part of the problem is that the case law has spent too much time pigeon holing various kinds of “just cause” when the underlying intent of the statute seems to be that we want to give employees unemployment benefits when they lose their employment through no fault of their own and not give them benefits when they had control over whether they kept the job or not and chose to act in a fashion that got them terminated.
The Review Board made credibility determinations and findings of fact that indicated the employee lost the job through his own fault. But they arguably put it in the wrong just cause pigeon hole. Where the facts clearly support an alternate pigeon hole, what’s the outcome? In this case, the Court of Appeals said “too bad, the employee gets the benefits.” The Supreme Court disagreed saying that if the facts support another basis as a matter of law, the appellate court can remedy that.
As an alternative, I had argued that the case should be remanded to the Review Board.
I see some zoning cases where zoning boards of appeal are given great leeway to cite to the wrong provisions but reach a result which would be supportable. But they are not ALJs.
Anyway, congrats on the win. Maybe some snot-nosed law student will write a case note on your case. Your name will live on in glowing credit or ill repute.
The other side argued that to some degree. But I don’t think the nature of the process supported that complaint in this case.
As far as the employer was concerned, they told the employee the rule about taking time off and how to account for it. He ignored that instruction. So, they fired him. They told him to account for time in a certain way – that was a rule. The handbook says to obey your supervisor – that’s another rule. There are (among others) two itemized bases of just cause – one says you have to follow the employer’s rules. Another says you have to follow your supervisor’s instructions.
So, the initial hearing, employers and employees go in without lawyers; tell the Administrative Law Judge what happened. They don’t typically check off statutory bases for just cause termination. In this case, where legal theories overlap a great deal, the employer doesn’t have a lot of control over whether the ALJ or Review Board picks “broke a rule” or “insubordination” or “both” as supporting the fact that the termination was for just cause.
You have to present certain evidence about enforcing rules – such as, that it was uniformly enforced and written. Different evidence will support “insubordination” — that the instruction was given, that it was reasonable, and that the employee didn’t follow it.
The question was whether the employer should get hamstrung before the Court of Appeals because the Review Board talked a lot about breaking rules and not enough about insubordination even though, legally, the findings of fact better supported insubordination. The Court of Appeals said “yes.” The Supreme Court said “no.”
Congratulations!
Congrats. I get frustrated with the Court of Appeals and the Supremes, because the decisions seem sometimes to bear no relation to the actual facts presented at trial. Also: they only publish decisions I am involved in when I lose. Meh. I should just get over it.