Kathleen Burnell v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
Sep 15 2015, 9:09 am
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.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Amy Andreas Gregory F. Zoeller
Abhishek Chaudhary Attorney General of Indiana
Indiana Legal Services, Inc.
Indianapolis, Indiana Frances Barrow
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kathleen Burnell, September 15, 2015
Appellant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
93A02-1505-EX-260
v. Appeal from the Review Board of
the Department of Workforce
Review Board of the Indiana Development
Department of Workforce Steven F. Bier, Chairperson
Development, George H. Baker, Member
Lawrence A. Dailey, Member
Appellee.
Review Board Case No.
15-R-633
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1505-EX-260 | September 15, 2015 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Kathleen Burnell1 appeals the determination of the Review Board of the
Indiana Department of Workforce Development (“Review Board”) to deny her
claim for unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Burnell raises one issue, which we restate as whether the Review Board’s
decision that Burnell voluntarily left her employment without good cause in
connection with the work is reasonable.
Facts
[3] Beginning on April 15, 2013, Burnell was employed as a bartender/server at a
golf club/restaurant. On May 17, 2013, Burnell complained to the club
manager about a verbal altercation with another employee. According to K.B,
the manager said, “this isn’t working out” and “maybe you should start looking
for another job.” Tr. p. 8. The manager denied telling her that she should start
looking for another job. The manager then left, and Burnell went to the
bathroom, where she staying crying for several hours. The manager then asked
someone to send Burnell home. The next day, Burnell did not report to start
1
Burnell used her full name in her briefs and waived her right to keep her identity confidential. See Ind.
Administrative Rule (9)(G)(6).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1505-EX-260 | September 15, 2015 Page 2 of 6
her shift. She called the manager twice and left messages for him because she
“didn’t want to be charged for the uniform . . . .” Id. at 9.
[4] Burnell applied for unemployment benefits and, on December 9, 2013, a claims
deputy determined that Burnell was not entitled to benefits because she
voluntarily left her employment without good cause in connection with the
work. Burnell appealed that determination, and a hearing was held before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in January 2014. The ALJ affirmed the
claims deputy’s decision, and Burnell appealed to the Review Board. The
Review Board vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded for a new hearing
before a different ALJ.
[5] A second hearing was held in March 2015. The new ALJ also affirmed the
claims deputy’s decision and concluded that Burnell “voluntarily quit her
employment without good cause in connection to the work.” App. p. 4.
Burnell appealed to the Review Board, which adopted and incorporated the
ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with one modification. The
Review Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision as modified. Burnell now appeals.
Analysis
[6] Burnell appeals the Review Board’s determination that she voluntarily
terminated her employment without good cause. The Review Board’s decision
is conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12(a).
On appeal, the standard of review is threefold: (1) findings of basic fact are
reviewed for substantial evidence; (2) findings of mixed questions of law and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1505-EX-260 | September 15, 2015 Page 3 of 6
fact—ultimate facts—are reviewed for reasonableness; and (3) legal
propositions are reviewed for correctness. Recker v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of
Workforce Dev., 958 N.E.2d 1136, 1139 (Ind. 2011). When reviewing findings of
basic fact, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of
witnesses. J.M. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 975 N.E.2d 1283,
1286 (Ind. 2012). Rather, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the
Review Board’s findings, and we reverse only if there is no substantial evidence
to support the findings. Id. Ultimate facts are facts that “involve an inference
or deduction based on the findings of basic fact.” Recker, 958 N.E.2d at 1139.
Where such facts are within the “special competence of the [Review] Board,”
we will give greater deference to the Review Board’s conclusions, broadening
the scope of what can be considered reasonable. Id.
[7] The purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Act is to provide benefits to
those who are involuntarily out of work, through no fault of their own, for
reasons beyond their control. Davis v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev.,
900 N.E.2d 488, 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). An employee who has voluntarily
left his or her employment without good cause in connection with the work is
ineligible for unemployment benefits. I.C. § 22-4-15-1(a). The question of
whether an employee quit without good cause is a question of fact to be
determined by the Review Board. S.A. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce
Dev., 936 N.E.2d 336, 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). The claimant has the burden
to prove that good cause existed. Id. The reason for quitting must be job-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1505-EX-260 | September 15, 2015 Page 4 of 6
related and objective in character, excluding purely subjective and personal
reasons. Id. at 337-38.
[8] Burnell challenges the Review Board’s finding of the ultimate fact that she
voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause, thus disqualifying
her from receiving benefits pursuant to Indiana Code Section 22-4-15-1(a). See
McClain v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1318
(Ind. 1998). Burnell argues that she was fired from her employment, and the
manager testified that Burnell was not fired, rather that she quit. The ALJ
found the employer’s testimony more credible and found that Burnell’s actions
on the evening in question “do not make sense for someone who believed that
they had been discharged.” App. p. 4. Burnell’s argument is merely a request
to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. The evidence most favorable to
the ALJ’s findings, which the Review Board adopted, is that after the manager
suggested that Burnell’s employment was not “working out” and “maybe [she]
should start looking for another job,” Burnell stayed in the restroom for several
hours. Tr. p. 8. The next day, she did not go to work for her scheduled shift
and called a couple of times about returning her uniform. Burnell did not
clarify the manager’s comments and simply did not return to work. The
manager reasonably believed that Burnell had quit her employment when she
did not show up for her next shift. The Review Board’s determination that
Burnell voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause is
reasonable.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1505-EX-260 | September 15, 2015 Page 5 of 6
Conclusion
[9] The Review Board’s denial of Burnell’s unemployment benefits is reasonable.
We affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1505-EX-260 | September 15, 2015 Page 6 of 6