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.

FILED
Dec 29 2011, 9:22 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KRISTINA L. LYNN Lynn and Stein, P.C. Wabash, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana STEPHANIE ROTHENBERG Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.M., Appellant, vs. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 93A02-1106-EX-560

APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Cause No. 11-R-02108

December 29, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary J.M. appeals the denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development following the termination of his employment with Manchester College. He raises a single issue for our review: whether there is sufficient evidence that Manchester College terminated him for "just cause." We affirm. Facts and Procedural History Manchester College hired J.M. as a safety officer in August 2007. J.M.'s duties were to patrol the campus grounds and buildings, ensure that the campus buildings were secure, and respond to calls for assistance and emergencies from students, staff, and faculty. For each shift, Manchester College safety officers are expected to record the times that they check the various campus grounds and buildings into a patrol log. In February 2011, out of recent concern that J.M. was not making his required building patrols, Campus Safety Sergeant Jamin Sands ("Sands") followed J.M. on his patrol for three successive nights without J.M.'s knowledge.1 After each night, Sands crosschecked J.M.'s activity with his entries into the patrol log. There were major discrepancies each night. On the final night, J.M. left the safety office for only thirty-nine minutes during his entire eight hour shift and every log entry he made that night was false. On February 21, 2011, Sands, Manchester College Director of Safety Les Gahl ("Director Gahl"), and another officer held a meeting with J.M. to discuss what had been discovered. When confronted with the log discrepancies, J.M. admitted that he had entered

1

J.M.'s normal shift began at 12:00 a.m. and ended until 8:00 a.m.

2

false entries in his patrol log. He explained that he had been disgruntled for some time and that he was having problems at home with his son. J.M. also stated that other officers were not performing their patrols and were logging false entries, and therefore he thought he did not need to do so either. Manchester terminated J.M.'s employment on February 23, 2011 because J.M. had falsified his patrol log entries. This was in violation of "Summary Rule 3" in the Manchester College employee handbook which prohibits, among other things, "falsification of any business record." Tr. 9. According to the handbook, "[i]f an employee violates a Summary Rule...his or her employment will normally be terminated." Exhibit E. J.M. received and signed for a copy of the employee handbook on his first day of work and the employee handbook is posted online. J.M. applied for unemployment benefits and on March 14, 2011, a claims deputy at the Indiana Department of Workforce Development determined that J.M. was not discharged for just cause and that he was eligible for unemployment benefits. Manchester College appealed, and after an administrative hearing on April 7, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") reversed the initial decision by the claims deputy in a written decision on April 7, 2011. The Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board (the "Review Board") affirmed the ALJ's decision on May 24, 2011, and adopted and incorporated the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law into its opinion. J.M. now appeals. Additional facts will be discussed as necessary.

3

Discussion and Decision Standard of Review The Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act provides that any decision of the Review Board is conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. Ind. Code

Download J.M. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development.pdf

Indiana Law