Jessica Skidmore-Chisholm v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 23 2016, 10:02 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Cody B. Coombs Gregory F. Zoeller
Pritzke & Davis Attorney General of Indiana
Greenfield, Indiana
Frances Barrow
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN TH
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jessica Skidmore-Chisholm, June 23, 2016
Appellant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
93A02-1601-EX-117
v. Appeal from the Review Board of
the Department of Workforce
Review Board of the Indiana Development
Department of Workforce Review Board Number
Development, 15-RB-2080
Appellee.
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1601-EX-117 | June 23, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Jessica Skidmore-Chisholm1 (“Employee”) 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.
Issues
[2] Employee raises one issue, which we restate as whether the Review Board’s
decision that she was discharged for just cause is reasonable.
Facts
[3] Employee began working for Fedex Kinko’s Office and Print Services, Inc.,
(“Employer”) in 1995. In July 2015, Employee was the subject of a
garnishment proceeding. The trial court sent paperwork to the Employer
regarding the garnishment. The paperwork was addressed to Employer, and
Employer was supposed to fill out the paperwork and return it to the court by a
certain date. Employee found the paperwork on the door of the store. She saw
her name on the paperwork and took it home. Copies of the paperwork were
also delivered to Employee’s home.
[4] The trial court called Employer regarding the paperwork, and the Employer
told the trial court that it had not received the paperwork. The trial court then
1
Skidmore-Chisholm used her full name in her brief and waived her right to keep her identity confidential.
See Ind. Administrative Rule (9)(G)(6).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1601-EX-117 | June 23, 2016 Page 2 of 6
sent Employer another set of the paperwork. Employer questioned Employee
about the paperwork, and she said that she “had not received anything.” Tr. p.
5. In August 2015, the second set of paperwork was sent to Employer.
Another employee placed the paperwork into Employee’s “cubby,” and
Employee again took the paperwork home. Id. at 13. Employer again had a
conversation with Employee about the paperwork, and she said that “she had
taken them home.” Id. at 6. Employee retrieved the paperwork from her home
and gave it to Employer. Employer then terminated Employee’s employment.
[5] After her discharge, Employee filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The
claims deputy found that Employee was not discharged for “just cause” and
that she was not disqualified from receiving benefits. Ex. p. 1. Employer
appealed the claims deputy’s decision, and a hearing was held before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ reversed the claims deputy’s
decision and found:
[Employee] was dishonest and [Employee] damaged the
employer’s trust and confidence in [her] ability to effectively
perform the job. [Employee] knew or should have known that
taking the garnishment paperwork home without discussing with
the manager was dishonest. Furthermore, [Employee] was not
honest when questioned about the situation. [Employee]
breached a relevant duty. Therefore, [Employee] was discharged
for just cause as defined by Indiana Code 22-4-15-1.
App. p. 3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1601-EX-117 | June 23, 2016 Page 3 of 6
[6] Employee appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Review Board, which adopted
and incorporated the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and affirmed
the ALJ’s decision. Employee now appeals.
Analysis
[7] Employee argues that the Review Board’s decision that she was discharged for
just cause is not reasonable. 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 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1601-EX-117 | June 23, 2016 Page 4 of 6
[8] 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 individual is ineligible to receive
unemployment benefits if he or she was discharged for “just cause.” Ind. Code
§ 22-4-15-1(a). Discharge for just cause is defined, in pertinent part, as “any
breach of duty in connection with work which is reasonably owed an employer
by an employee.” I.C. § 22-4-15-1(d)(9). When applying a breach of duty
analysis in this context:
the Board should consider whether the conduct which is said to
have been a breach of a duty reasonably owed to the employer is
of such a nature that a reasonable employee of the employer
would understand that the conduct in question was a violation of
a duty owed the employer and that he would be subject to
discharge for engaging in the activity or behavior.
Recker, 958 N.E.2d at 1140 (quoting Hehr v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec.
Div., 534 N.E.2d 1122, 1126 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)). Whether an employee
breaches a duty owed to the employer “is a very fact-sensitive determination
which must be made on a case by case basis.” Hehr, 534 N.E.2d at 1127.
[9] Employee argues that there was no evidence she acted dishonestly or breached
a duty to Employer. Employee does not dispute that she took the garnishment
paperwork home, but she contends she did not know the paperwork belonged
to Employer and did not “knowingly do anything wrong.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6.
Employee’s argument is a request for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1601-EX-117 | June 23, 2016 Page 5 of 6
credibility of the witnesses, which we cannot do. Employer presented evidence
that Employee twice removed the garnishment paperwork from the store and
took it home. The paperwork was addressed to Employer and included
documents that Employer was required to fill out and return to the court.
Employee denied seeing the first set of paperwork when she was questioned
about it. The Review Board determined that Employee was dishonest with
Employer and breached a duty to Employer. There is evidence to support this
decision, and it was reasonable.
Conclusion
[10] The Review Board’s decision that Employee breached a duty to Employer is
reasonable. We affirm.
[11] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1601-EX-117 | June 23, 2016 Page 6 of 6