Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE: BOYD BRYANT Carmel, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ELIZABETH ROGERS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Sep 19 2008, 9:48 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BOYD BRYANT, Appellant-Claimant, vs. GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE COMPANY and REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 93A02-0805-EX-423

APPEAL FROM THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REVIEW BOARD Case No. 08-R-715

September 19, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

RILEY, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant-Claimant, Boyd Bryant (Bryant), appeals the decision of the Appellee, Unemployment Insurance Review Board (Review Board), affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding that Bryant had been discharged for just cause. We affirm.
ISSUES

Bryant raised two issues for our review, which we restate as: (1) Whether the ALJ properly developed the record; and (2) Whether the decision of the ALJ was supported by sufficient evidence and facts.
FACTS AND PROCECURAL HISTORY

On October 30, 2007, Bryant was terminated from the Golden Rule Insurance Company (Employer) where he had been employed as a product advisor since January 5, 2006. He applied for unemployment and on November 19, 2007, a deputy with the Indiana Department of Workforce Development determined that the discharge was for just cause and rejected Bryant's claim. On November 27, 2007, he appealed the determination to an ALJ. On January 18, 2008, the ALJ held a hearing, after which she affirmed the decision of the deputy. On February 6, 2008, Bryant appealed the ALJ's decision to the Review Board. The Review Board remanded the matter back to the ALJ because the ALJ had failed to make sufficient findings. On March 7, 2008, the ALJ issued amended findings of fact, including: The Employer discharged [Bryant] due to complaints regarding rudeness to customers and fellow employees. On April 27, 2007, the Employer received a customer complaint. On this occasion, [Bryant] was impatient with a customer. In that conversation, [Bryant] said to the customer, "Now this is the third one more question." The 2

customer then asked, "what did you say?" [Bryant] then repeated himself by saying, "This is the third one more question." [Bryant] is also reported to have had inappropriate conversations with [a]ssistant [p]roduct [a]dvisors ("APA") regarding qualified leads. [Bryant] consistently questioned APAs when they were trying to transfer leads to him. So, the Employer instructed [Bryant] "to accept all leads delivered to him by the [a]ssistant [p]roduct [a]dvisors without questioning the APA and without antagonistic conversations with them. He has been informed that if he receives a lead that is not qualified, he is not to have any communication with the APA either by e-mail or through conversation and is to deliver the unqualified lead information to a manager." However, on October 8, 2007, [Bryant] refused a lead stating that "He needed to finish up something," and would call back. Also on that day, [Bryant] refused to sign a new call audit guideline, which all Product Advisors are required to sign and return. To the Employer's knowledge, all Product Advisors had signed and returned the guidelines, with the exception of [Bryant]. In the occurrence where [Bryant] refused to sign the new call audit guidelines, he also exhibited rude behavior toward the [p]erformance [c]oach. [Bryant] told the [p]erformance [c]oach that this was "not a sales job,' and when the performance coach attempted to respond, [Bryant] stated, `I was not telling you this because I wanted a response." [Bryant] also told the [p]erformance [c]oach that "it's my opinion and I don't want your opinion." On October 29, 2007, [Bryant] received another customer complaint regarding rude behavior. In this telephone call, the customer could not remember the details of her plan. [Bryant] stated, "That's the answer I always get, a customer will say I want what I have right now, and they'll say well I don't know!" Later in the conversation, the customer indicated that she was at work and wasn't able to listen to the information very well, so she asked [Bryant] to send the information to her. [Bryant] responded "very loudly" saying, `You're not listening to me?!" and then laughed and "very aggressively tried to end the call." (Appellant's App. pp. 5-6) (citations omitted). The ALJ concluded that Bryant had been fired for cause, and again affirmed the November 19, 2007 decision of the Workforce Development Deputy. The Review Board affirmed this determination. Bryant now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

3

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Did the ALJ Sufficiently Develop the Record? Bryant first contends that the ALJ failed to ask important questions that would ensure the presentation of all the facts needed for her consideration. Bryant relies on 646 Ind. Admin. Code

Download Boyd Bryant v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., et al..pdf

Indiana Law