MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 19 2019, 10:04 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R.P. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
David E. Corey
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT
Heather D. Cummings
Review Board Staff Attorney
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
R.P., June 19, 2019
Appellant-Claimant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-EX-1689
v. Appeal from the
Review Board of the Indiana
Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce
Department of Workforce Development
Development, Steven F. Bier, Chairperson, and
Appellee-Respondent. Lawrence A. Dailey, Member
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Review Board No.
18-R-586
Kirsch, Judge.
[1] R.P. (“Claimant”) appeals the Review Board of the Indiana Department of
Workforce Development’s (“Review Board”) denial of unemployment benefits,
raising the following restated issue for review: whether the Review Board’s
determination that Claimant voluntarily left his employment without good
cause was supported by the evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Claimant worked as a millwright for a construction company. He resigned on
December 23, 2017 and applied for unemployment benefits. The
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) heard the matter on May 21, 2018. Tr. at 2.
During the hearing, when asked whether he quit or was discharged, Claimant
stated “…I quit. Voluntary layoff.” Id. He told the ALJ that he had to quit
because of “family issues.” Id. at 6. Claimant also stated that the Company
recorded his departure as a layoff. Id. Claimant said that it was his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 2 of 5
understanding that a person “can leave a job at any time,” but, if the employee
is a good worker, the company will record the departure as a layoff. Id. at 7.
[4] Claimant was found not eligible for unemployment compensation. Ex. Vol. at
16. The ALJ found that the reasons for Claimant leaving voluntarily were not
job-related and concluded that Claimant “quit due to personal reasons” and
without good cause and determined that Claimant was disqualified from
receiving benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act. Ex. Vol. at
17.Id.
[5] Claimant appealed the decision to the Review Board on May 30, 2018.
Appellee’s App. Vol. 2 at 5. On June 15, 2018, the Review Board entered its
order, affirming the ALJ’s decision and adopting and incorporating therein the
ALJ’s findings of facts and conclusions of law. Id. Claimant now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] When reviewing a decision by the Review Board, our standard of review is well
established:
“The Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act provides that any decision
of the review board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.
Ind.Code § 22–4–17–12(a). Review Board decisions may, however, be
challenged as contrary to law, in which case the reviewing court examines the
sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the
evidence to sustain the findings of facts. Ind.Code § 22–4–17–12(f). Under this
standard, we review determinations of specific or basic underlying facts,
conclusions or inferences drawn from those facts, and legal conclusions.
McClain v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1317
(Ind.1998).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 3 of 5
“When reviewing a decision by the Review Board, our task is to determine
whether the decision is reasonable in light of its findings. Abdirizak v. Review Bd.
of Dept. of Workforce Development, 826 N.E.2d 148, 150 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). Our
review of the Review Board's findings is subject to a “substantial evidence”
standard of review. Id. In this analysis, we neither reweigh the evidence nor
assess witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to
the Review Board's findings. Id. Further, we will reverse the decision only if
there is no substantial evidence to support the Review Board's findings. Id.”
[7] Davis v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 900 N.E.2d 488, 492 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2009).
[8]
[9] An individual may not receive unemployment compensation benefits if he
voluntarily left his most recent employment without good cause. Ind. Code §
22-4-15-1(a). The employee’s reason for terminating employment must be
objective and job related. Davis, 900 N.E.2d at 492. Purely subjective reasons
for voluntary termination, such as domestic obligations, will not be considered
good cause. Gray v. Dobbs House, Inc., 357 N.E.2d 900, 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976)
[10] Claimant claims that the December weather was a factor in addition to his
family responsibilities and contends that the Review Board erred in determining
the reason he left his job. Appellant’s Br. at 9. The purpose of the
Unemployment Compensation Act (“Act”) is to provide benefits to those who
are involuntarily out of work, through no fault of their own, for reasons beyond
their control. Brown v. Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 919 N.E.2d 1147, 1150 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009). This court has noted that while parental obligations “no doubt
constitute good personal reason[s] for termination of employment, they
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 4 of 5
nevertheless lack the objective nexus with employment envisioned by the Act.”
Id. at 1152 (quoting Gray, 357 N.E.2d at, 903).
[11] None of Claimant’s reasons for quitting his job are job-related. First,
transportation was not a job-related task required by Employer, and the
weather’s effect on Claimant’s commute is not a job-related reason to leave his
employment. Further, Claimant quit due to family-related personal reasons.
Tr. at 6. Familial obligations are inherently personal and subjective.
[12] Employer recorded Claimant’s departure as a layoff because Claimant was a
good employee, not because a layoff occurred. Ex. Vol. at 17. This recording
was not accurate. If the Claimant had actually been laid off, Claimant would
have been eligible for unemployment benefits under the Act. Claimant stated
repeatedly that he quit because of personal and family reasons and that he was
not laid off. Tr. at 6; Appellant’s Br. at 9.
[13] Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment for reasons that were not
related to his job. As a result, he was ineligible for unemployment benefits.
[14] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 5 of 5