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: KAREN S. BLACK South Whitley, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ELIZABETH ROGERS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
KAREN S. BLACK, Appellant, vs. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and MICROPULSE, INC. Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 93A02-0607-EX-613

APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Cause No. 06-R-01721

February 28, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Karen Black, pro se, appeals a determination by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development ("the Board") denying her unemployment benefits. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Black worked as a third-shift machinist for Micropulse, Inc., from February 28, 2005 until March 20, 2006. On the evening of Friday, March 17, 2006, Black forgot the key to her toolbox and asked a friend, Dawn Robertson, to bring her the spare key. After Robertson arrived with the spare key, Black returned to work at her machine. Robertson remained on the plant floor near Black's machine for about two hours before leaving. On Monday, March 20, 2006, Black was discharged for violating company policy regarding visitors. The employee handbook stated: "If anyone comes to visit you, you will be paged and asked to meet your visitor in the office lobby near the building entrance. Visitors will be allowed on the plant floor only when authorized by or accompanied by a member of Management." (Employer Exhibit #2.) Black's claim for unemployment compensation was denied on the ground she was terminated for just cause. She appealed the initial decision, arguing Micropulse had not followed the "corrective action process outlined in the employee handbook," (Appellee's App. at 32), and she had been "discriminated against because of gender." (Id.) After a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed the initial determination denying Black benefits. Black appealed to the Board. The Board adopted the ALJ's findings and conclusions, and affirmed the decision. 2

DISCUSSION AND DECISION Black raises three issues in her appeal. 1 We address one: whether the review board erred in determining she was fired for just cause. When reviewing a decision by the Board, we determine whether the decision is reasonable in light of the Board's findings. Ky. Truck Sales, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev., 725 N.E.2d 523, 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). The Board's findings of fact are generally conclusive and binding upon this court. Id.; Ind. Code

Download 02280703msm.pdf

Indiana Law