K.L. v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev.

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: FRIEDLANDER, Judge.
• Citation: K.L. v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 39 N.E.3d 415(Table) (Ind. App. 2015)
• Decision Date: 25 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 93A02–1409–EX–682.,93A02–1409–EX–682.
• Parties: K.L., Appellant–Defendant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and Indiana University Health Appellee–Plaintiff.

39 N.E.3d 415 (Table)

K.L., Appellant–Defendant

v.REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and Indiana University Health Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 93A02–1409–EX–682.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Aug. 25, 2015.

Abigail Seif, Epstein, Cohen, Seif & Porter, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Kristin Garn, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

[1] K.L. appeals from the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (the Review Board) denying her application for unemployment benefits. K.L. presents four issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as:

1. Whether the Review Board applied the appropriate standard in evaluating the evidence?

2. Whether enactment of Ind.Code Ann. § 22–4–1–2 (West, Westlaw current with all 2015 First Regular Session of the 119th General Assembly legislation), which redefined the burden-shifting framework previously applied in making determinations as to unemployment benefits, violates an applicant's due process rights?

3. Whether the Review Board properly concluded that K.L. was terminated for just cause and therefore was ineligible for unemployment benefits?

[2] We affirm.

[3] K.L. was employed by Indiana University Health (IU Health) in Indianapolis from October 11, 2010 until May 20, 2014. At the time of her termination, K.L.'s job title was Strategic Value Analyst. The Director of Contracting and Value Analysis for IU Health, Linda York, cited K.L.'s failure to meet deadlines, to use critical thinking abilities, and her overall inability to perform the functions of the job as reasons for her termination. After her termination, K.L. sought unemployment benefits. On June 30, 2014, a claims deputy with the Indiana Department of Workforce Development determined that K.L. was not discharged for just cause and therefore was eligible for unemployment benefits. On July 10, 2014, IU Health appealed the claims deputy's determination. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted an evidentiary hearing on July 30, 2014, at which K.L., York, and Stacey Slott, a Team Leader with IU Health, testified.

[4] On August 1, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision. The facts as determined by the ALJ and subsequently adopted by the Review Board are as follows:

The claimant began work with the employer on October 11, 2010.

The claimant was transferred to the contracting department in January 2013. The claimant's job title was strategic value analyst and she was a full time salaried employee. The claimant was discharged on May 20,2014.

When the claimant came to the new department, Ms. Slott continually repeatedly trained the claimant on the programs and procedures for the department. The claimant's responsibility was to do cost analysis information for supplies, negotiate contracts and keep track of this information. The employer works with hospitals. For example if the hospitals needed more ID bracelets, it was the claimant's obligation to gather the information, obtain quotes from vendors and negotiate the contact and the pricing. The employer became increasingly concerned regarding the claimant's performance in January, 2014. By this time, the claimant had been relieved of her duties of her old job, but was still not performing her new job duties adequately. The employer was receiving complaints that the claimant was repeatedly requesting the same information, not following instructions and failing to follow up on information.

Ms. Slott began to have one-on-ones with the claimant to discuss her performance. Ms. Slott testified and the Administrative Law Judge finds, that the claimant's attitude improved but she continued to fail to follow up on her items and to get work done. She would repeatedly not meet deadlines or utilize tools that Ms. Slott had made available to her. In April 2014, the employer sent the claimant an[ ] email requesting that she set out timelines for completing some work that the employer was concerned about. This included a project involving batteries. However, the claimant never read the email even if she had admits [sic] receiving it from her supervisor. The employer met with the claimant to discuss the timelines on April 24th. At that time, the claimant admitted she had not read the email and had not drafted any timelines. The employer was concerned by this and gave the claimant a warning. The claimant was warned that she was given until May 2 to draft a timeline and deadlines for her work assignments. The claimant was also spoken to about using appropriate procedures and initiative.

On May 2nd, the claimant presented her timelines. However, the timelines failed to follow procedures the employer utilizes for their work. It did not include any deadlines. The claimant was given a continued performance improvement plan on May 5, 2014 regarding these concerns. The employer was concerned that the timelines did not include any deadlines. The employer also expressed concerns about the claimant's continued lack of understanding the processes despite multiple training sessions and the claimant had repeatedly signed off admitting that she understood the information. She did not understand the process of initiatives and continued to have vendor complaints. For example, the claimant had failed to use forms and information on proper procedures found on the F drive. The claimant alleged she was never told of these documents on the F drive. However, the claimant had been repeatedly trained on them and signed off, acknowledging having been trained on them. The expectations for improvement included that the claimant needed to meet deadlines immediately, demonstrate the ability to correct price discrepancies and to provide project plans for ongoing initiatives. On May 6, 2014, the employer sent a follow up email, with the claimant's timelines attached, reminding the claimant that “it is the expectation that you will have all of the initiatives listed well under way with clear progress or completion” within the next two weeks. On May 20th, the employer met with the claimant again. The claimant had not completed the projects. The claimant continued to fail to utilize the appropriate steps and procedures for completing work. The claimant was discharged.

The claimant argued at the hearing that her poor performance was caused by lack of training or other employee's errors. For example, she claims she was never told of forms and procedures available on the F drive. However, the employer testified and the Administrative Taw Judge finds that the claimant was repeatedly trained on them and signed off that she knew and understood the procedures. The claimant blamed other employees for giving her poor information. However, the employer noted that one of the claimant's job duties is to manage her timeline and making sure she's obtaining correct and timely information. The claimant argues that she had shown improvement between the May 5th and the May 20th discharge. However, the employer testified and the Administrative Law Judge finds, that the claimant continued to fail to understand procedures, follow initiatives and complete work in a timely manner.

Appellee's Appendix at 2–3. Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded that K.L. was terminated for just cause¹ and therefore was ineligible for unemployment benefits. K.L. appealed the ALJ's decision to the Review Board. On August 29, 2014, the Review Board issued its decision in which it affirmed and adopted as its own the decision previously rendered by the ALJ. K.L. now appeals.

1.

[5] K.L. argues that the Review Board did not properly apply the law with regard to burden of proof. Specifically, K.L. asserts that the Review Board erred by retroactively applying I.C. § 22–4–1–2(c), which provision redefined the burdenshifting framework that had been previously articulated in case law by reviewing courts such that now both parties are required to present their evidence as to whether termination was for just cause and a decision is to be made thereon “without regard to a burden of proof.”

[6] A general rule of statutory construction is that unless there are strong and compelling reasons, statutes will not be applied retroactively. See Holding Co. v. Mitchell, 589 N.E.2d 217 (Ind.1992) ; Chestnut v. Roof, 665 N.E.2d 7 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). In other words, a statute will be applied prospectively in the absence of an express statement by the legislature that it be applied retroactively. Ind. Dep'tof Envtl. Mgmt. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Ind., Inc., 604 N.E.2d 1199 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied. “An exception to this general rule exists for remedial statutes, i.e. statutes intended to cure a defect or mischief that existed in a prior statute.” Bourbon Mini–Mart, Inc. v. Gast Fuel & Servs., Inc., 783 N.E.2d 253, 260 (Ind.2003). The issue of retroactivity is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. Ind. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Ind., Inc., 604 N.E.2d 1199 ; Bellows v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Cnty. of Elkhart, 926 N.E.2d 96 (Ind.Ct.App.2010).

[7] The legislature enacted I.C. § 22–4–1–2, which went into effect July 1, 2014, and redefined the burden of proof to be used in making determinations about eligibility for unemployment compensation. Specifically, in subsection (c), the legislature provided that “[a]n applicant's entitlement to unemployment benefits is determined based on the information that is available without regard to a burden of proof. ” (Emphasis supplied.) Subsection (c) superseded existing case law which, prior to the enactment of I.C. § 22–4–1–2, set forth a burden-shifting framework in the unemployment context whereby the employer who alleged that an employee was discharged for just cause carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discharge for just cause. See Albright v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 994 N.E.2d 745 (Ind.Ct.App.2013)....