Unemployment Benefits

Alebro v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (Ind. Ct. App. April 18, 2012)

In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the Review Board’s grant of unemployment benefits, holding that if an employee’s explanation for the behavior that led to termination is a different terminable offense, the employer has just cause to terminate the employee.

Alebro, a company that sells salt, fired an employee it caught selling salt on Alebro’s property. Alebro believed the salt belonged to Alebro and fired the employee for theft. At the unemployment benefits hearing, the employee argued he owned the salt. Selling one’s own salt on Alebro’s property was also a terminable offense.

The Court of Appeals held that the Review Board improperly failed to consider that the employee’s defense to termination was that he committed a different terminable offense than the employer identified as its grounds for discharge. The Court recognized that under its previous decision of Voss v. Review Board of Department of Employment and Training Services, 533 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), the scope of review is limited to the stated offense. The Court explained that the Voss rule is meant to prevent surprise. This rationale does not apply where an employee affirmatively defends his conduct by admitting to a new terminable offense.

This case presents a good example of the Court of Appeals (and likely the attorney who represented the employer) looking at the rationale for precedent and modifying or limiting that precedent to deal with a new fact pattern. Appellate attorneys should not be afraid to acknowledge unfavorable precedent – in fact, our Rules of Professional Responsibility require us to inform the Court of unfavorable precedent – and then examine the underlying facts or rationale for the precedential rule and explain how or why it does not apply to the case at bar.

A final interesting point raised in this case is whether the Court of Appeals should have disclosed the name of the employer and employee in its published decision. Judge Crone concurred with the majority’s reasoning and result, but wrote a separate opinion arguing that Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G)(1) and Indiana Code section 22-4-19-6 required confidentiality. Judge Crone pointed out the Supreme Court has taken a somewhat inconsistent approach to this confidentially requirement, citing Recker v. Review Board, 2011 WL 6848389 (Ind. 2011) (identifying the parties where neither party made a specific request for confidentiality) and Chrysler Group, LLC v. Review Board, 960 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2012) (identifying the employee by initials but the employer by name based on the impractical nature of concealing the identity of Chrysler Group). Judge Crone presents a compelling argument based on the plain language of Administrative Rule 9. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court offers some clarity on this issue.

Barrett McNagny LLP

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in the Barrett McNagny LLP website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice on any subject matter. Furthermore, the information contained on our website may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act upon this information without consulting legal counsel.

Your transmission and receipt of information on the Barrett McNagny LLP website, or sending an e-mail to one of our attorneys or staff, will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Barrett McNagny LLP. If you need legal advice and want to establish an attorney-client relationship with Barrett McNagny LLP, please contact one of our attorneys by telephone, email, or other means of communication, and allow the attorney to confirm that the firm does not represent other persons or entities involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to accept representation. Until such confirmation is provided by one of our attorneys, you should not transmit information to us that you consider confidential. If you do provide information to us, and no attorney-client relationship is established, the information will not be considered confidential or privileged, and our receipt of such information will not preclude us from representing another client in a matter adverse to you.

Any links to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

ADA Compliance

Transparency Cover Rule: Machine-Readable Files

Contact Us
My name is
and I am a(n)
seeking legal counsel in the area of 
me at
as soon as you can.

Thank you for contacting us!

A representative will be in touch with you shortly.

An attorney-client relationship will NOT be formed merely by sending an email to Barrett McNagny, LLP or to any of its attorneys. Please do not send any information specific to your legal needs until you obtain approval from a Barrett McNagny, LLP attorney, as the content of such email will not be considered confidential or privileged. By sending us an email, you confirm your understanding of this notification. If you agree, you may use the e-mail links on this page to contact an attorney.