R.D. v. Review Bd. of The Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev.
| Decision Date | 14 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 93A02–1005–EX–559.,93A02–1005–EX–559. |
| Citation | 941 N.E.2d 1063 |
| Parties | R.D., Appellant–Petitioner,v.REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and IDWD Adjudication, Appellees–Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gregory A. Bullman, Andrews Harrell Mann Carmin & Parker, P.C., Bloomington, IN, Attorney for Appellant.Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Stephanie Rothenber, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
R.D. was laid off by his employer, losing his position as a machinist. Desiring to retrain by obtaining a degree in graphic arts, R.D. took advantage of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Trade Act”), and applied to use Trade Adjustment Assistance funding established under the Trade Act to pay for retraining in a graphic arts program at the Art Institute of Indianapolis (“the Art Institute”). The Indiana Department of Workforce Development (“the Department”) is responsible to administer the funding available to Indiana residents under the Trade Act and in that capacity, the Department denied R.D.'s request based on its cost. During the administrative appeal of the Department's denial, the Department's director presented evidence that R.D. could enroll in a program at Ivy Tech at a cost of approximately $11,700, compared to the Art Institute's cost of more than $56,000. The Administrative Law Judge (“the ALJ”) hearing R.D.'s appeal found that the programs at issue were substantially similar and denied R.D.'s application to attend the Art Institute because of the cost difference. The Review Board affirmed the ALJ's denial of R.D.'s application.
R.D. appeals the Review Board's decision, arguing that the evidence established that the Ivy Tech program was not substantially similar to the Art Institute's program and was not suitable for his needs. Concluding that the Review Board erred when it denied R.D.'s application for training at the Art Institute, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
R.D. worked at General Electric (“General Electric”) in Bloomington as a machine operator until September 19, 2009, when his employment was terminated due to a reduction in workforce. At the time of his termination, R.D. was earning $24.95 per hour. Thereafter, R.D. applied to the Department for trade adjustment assistance and/or trade readjustment allowance job retraining benefits programs established by the Trade Act.1
Additional facts, as found by the ALJ, are as follows:
The claimant sought training at the Art Institute of Indianapolis which was denied because it did not fall under the “reasonable” cost definition of approvable training. The claimant wanted a degree in Graphic Arts. Classes would begin on or about February 18, 2010 and the training would last until September 24, 2011. The cost for tuition, books, and supplies would be $56,106. There was also a program at Ivy Tech in Indianapolis ... for a degree in Fine Arts. This program would begin on March 8, 2010. The classes would take 2 years and the total cost would be approximately $11,799.80. For both schools, the claimant would receive mileage because he lives more than 50 miles from Indianapolis, which would add approximately $8,000 to the cost of education. The claimant believed that the training at the Art Institute would be better because it would train the claimant in graphic arts. The claimant also might be able to eliminate some classes after preparing a portfolio for the Art Institute. The department believed that the cost for the Art Institute was unreasonable given the documentation submitted by the claimant compared to the cost of Ivy Tech. The claimant believed the program at the Art Institute would better train him for the type of work he wanted to do.
During an administrative hearing on March 2, 2010, R.D. testified that he could obtain a degree in graphic arts from the Art Institute in approximately eighteen months. The Art Institute program would train R.D. in both print and web design within that eighteen month time period.
R.D. submitted extraordinary, high-quality examples of his graphic arts work both to the Department and to the hearing officer at the administrative hearing as a part of his evidence. See Appellant's App. pp. 55–67. It is clear from this evidence that R.D. is a gifted, self-trained graphic artist. R.D. further testified that he has “done part-time work in the past in the graphics field,” but he is unable to obtain a full time position without a degree. Tr. p. 8.
In support of that testimony, R.D. submitted a letter from a previous, part-time, graphic arts employer, indicating that if there was an opening at the company, “[R.D.] would be an extremely strong candidate for that position” if he held a degree from the Art Institute. Id. at 43. R.D. earned approximately $40,000 per year at General Electric working at his hourly rate of $24.95, and, according to R.D.'s report and self-investigation, a job at his part-time previous graphic arts employer would pay $20 to $35 per hour upon graduation. In addition, R.D. submitted the Art Institute's published placement rate of 78.3% through its placement services for students like R.D.
Finally, R.D. presented evidence establishing that the Ivy Tech program the Department had approved instead of the Art Institute's program would require two years to complete. Moreover, at Ivy Tech, the student must choose either print or web design, and cannot attend both programs at the same time. According to the uncontested evidence R.D. presented at the hearing, an Ivy Tech graduate could expect to be hired into only an entry-level, temporary job, which would pay approximately $9 per hour. R.D. also submitted uncontested evidence that Ivy Tech lacks relevant placement services, and it could not provide any placement statistics for the graduates of its graphic arts programming.
The Department's representative at the hearing, Randy Frey, did not dispute the evidence that R.D. submitted. Rather, Frey focused on the programs' costs and testified that R.D. “must go with the lowest cost provider.” Id. at 18.
In affirming the initial determination denying R.D.'s request for training at the Art Institute, the ALJ determined that “training may not be approved at one provider when, all costs being considered, training substantially similar in quality, content and results can be obtained from another provider at a lower cost within a similar time frame.” Id. at 71. R.D. appealed the ALJ's decision to the Review Board. On April 30, 2010, the Review Board adopted the ALJ's decision and affirmed the denial of R.D.'s request to attend the Art Institute. R.D. now appeals.
We initially observe that the Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act states that “any decision of the review board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.” McClain v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1316 (Ind.1998); Ind.Code § 22–4–17–12(a). Moreover:
When reviewing a decision by the Review Board, our task is to determine whether the decision is reasonable in light of its findings. Our review of the Review Board's findings is subject to a “substantial evidence” standard of review. In this analysis, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the Review Board's findings. Further, we will reverse the decision only if there is no substantial evidence to support the Review Board's findings.
Quakenbush v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 891 N.E.2d 1051, 1054 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (citation omitted). We review the Review Board's conclusions of law de novo. Penny v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 852 N.E.2d 954, 957 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).
In 1962, Congress first attempted to provide relief for workers in the United States whose jobs had been eliminated due to “a liberalized international trade policy.” Anderson v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 412 N.E.2d 819, 822 (Ind.Ct.App.1981). Thereafter, the Trade Act was established
to provide trade readjustment allowance benefits to qualified workers who had lost their jobs due to foreign competition. In order to qualify individuals must satisfy group and individual worker eligibility requirements. Under the Act, the Secretary of Labor certifies that a group of workers is engaged in employment adversely affected by imported products and eligible to apply for [trade readjustment allowance] benefits. Individual workers within the group must then meet certain standards to qualify to receive such benefits.
Sanders v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Emp't. Sec. Div., 514 N.E.2d 654, 656 (Ind.Ct.App.1987). The Trade Act sought to alleviate requirements in order to “provide more benefits to more workers.” Anderson, 412 N.E.2d at 822. As a result, the Trade Readjustment Allowance benefits program was developed. 2Sanders, 514 N.E.2d at 656. Additionally, under the Trade Act, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program was enacted to assist those who became unemployed as a result of increased imports to return to suitable employment. 20 C.F.R. § 617.2. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program provides tuition and some of the incidental costs to retrain workers who have been laid off as a result of international competition. 19 U.S.C. § 2296. While there is no specific monetary limit on the cost of individual training programs for which applicants may obtain approval, there are some limitations on total annual funding for trade adjustment assistance training. 19 U.S.C. § 2296(a)(2).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry v. Unemployment Ins. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev.
...redeterminations under the applicable State law, and only in that manner and to that extent.’ ” R.D. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 1063, 1067 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 617.51(a)). “In other words, a denial of training benefits is reviewable in state ......
-
Rodriquez v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev.
...941 N.E.2d 1063 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) in support of her claim, but the circumstances of that case greatly differ from Rodriquez's case. In R.D., laid-off employee applied to the DWD to use funding established by a federal statute, and administered by the DWD, to pay for retraining in a new fie......