Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

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.

APPELLANT PRO SE

R.P.

Marion, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA 

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE 

DEVELOPMENT

Heather D. Cummings

Review Board Staff Attorney

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

R.P.,

Appellant-Claimant,

v. 

Review Board of the Indiana 

Department of Workforce 

Development,

Appellee-Respondent.

June 19, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-EX-1689

Appeal from the

Review Board of the Indiana 

Department of Workforce 

Development

Steven F. Bier, Chairperson, and

Lawrence A. Dailey, Member
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 2 of 5

Review Board No.

18-R-586

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] R.P. (“Claimant”) appeals the Review Board of the Indiana Department of 

Workforce Development’s (“Review Board”) denial of unemployment benefits,

raising the following restated issue for review: whether the Review Board’s 

determination that Claimant voluntarily left his employment without good 

cause was supported by the evidence. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Claimant worked as a millwright for a construction company. He resigned on

December 23, 2017 and applied for unemployment benefits. The 

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) heard the matter on May 21, 2018. Tr. at 2. 

During the hearing, when asked whether he quit or was discharged, Claimant 

stated “...I quit. Voluntary layoff.” Id. He told the ALJ that he had to quit 

because of “family issues.” Id. at 6. Claimant also stated that the Company 

recorded his departure as a layoff. Id. Claimant said that it was his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 3 of 5

understanding that a person “can leave a job at any time,” but, if the employee 

is a good worker, the company will record the departure as a layoff. Id. at 7. 

[4] Claimant was found not eligible for unemployment compensation. Ex. Vol. at 

16. The ALJ found that the reasons for Claimant leaving voluntarily were not 

job-related and concluded that Claimant “quit due to personal reasons” and

without good cause and determined that Claimant was disqualified from 

receiving benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act. Ex. Vol. at 

17.Id. 

[5] Claimant appealed the decision to the Review Board on May 30, 2018. 

Appellee’s App. Vol. 2 at 5. On June 15, 2018, the Review Board entered its 

order, affirming the ALJ’s decision and adopting and incorporating therein the 

ALJ’s findings of facts and conclusions of law. Id. Claimant now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] When reviewing a decision by the Review Board, our standard of review is well 

established:

“The Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act provides that any decision 

of the review board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. 

Ind.Code § 22–4–17–12(a). Review Board decisions may, however, be 

challenged as contrary to law, in which case the reviewing court examines the 

sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the 

evidence to sustain the findings of facts. Ind.Code § 22–4–17–12(f). Under this 

standard, we review determinations of specific or basic underlying facts, 

conclusions or inferences drawn from those facts, and legal conclusions. 

McClain v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1317 

(Ind.1998).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 4 of 5

“When reviewing a decision by the Review Board, our task is to determine 

whether the decision is reasonable in light of its findings. Abdirizak v. Review Bd. 

of Dept. of Workforce Development, 826 N.E.2d 148, 150 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). Our 

review of the Review Board's findings is subject to a “substantial evidence” 

standard of review. Id. 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. Id. Further, we will reverse the decision only if 

there is no substantial evidence to support the Review Board's findings. Id.”

[7] Davis v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 900 N.E.2d 488, 492 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2009). 

[8]

[9] An individual may not receive unemployment compensation benefits if he 

voluntarily left his most recent employment without good cause. Ind. Code § 

22-4-15-1(a). The employee’s reason for terminating employment must be

objective and job related. Davis, 900 N.E.2d at 492. Purely subjective reasons

for voluntary termination, such as domestic obligations, will not be considered 

good cause. Gray v. Dobbs House, Inc., 357 N.E.2d 900, 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) 

[10] Claimant claims that the December weather was a factor in addition to his 

family responsibilities and contends that the Review Board erred in determining 

the reason he left his job. Appellant’s Br. at 9. The purpose of the 

Unemployment Compensation Act (“Act”) is to provide benefits to those who 

are involuntarily out of work, through no fault of their own, for reasons beyond 

their control. Brown v. Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 919 N.E.2d 1147, 1150 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2009). This court has noted that while parental obligations “no doubt 

constitute good personal reason[s] for termination of employment, they 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-EX-1689 | June 19, 2019 Page 5 of 5

nevertheless lack the objective nexus with employment envisioned by the Act.” 

Id. at 1152 (quoting Gray, 357 N.E.2d at, 903). 

[11] None of Claimant’s reasons for quitting his job are job-related. First,

transportation was not a job-related task required by Employer, and the 

weather’s effect on Claimant’s commute is not a job-related reason to leave his 

employment. Further, Claimant quit due to family-related personal reasons. 

Tr. at 6. Familial obligations are inherently personal and subjective. 

[12] Employer recorded Claimant’s departure as a layoff because Claimant was a 

good employee, not because a layoff occurred. Ex. Vol. at 17. This recording

was not accurate. If the Claimant had actually been laid off, Claimant would 

have been eligible for unemployment benefits under the Act. Claimant stated 

repeatedly that he quit because of personal and family reasons and that he was 

not laid off. Tr. at 6; Appellant’s Br. at 9. 

[13] Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment for reasons that were not 

related to his job. As a result, he was ineligible for unemployment benefits. 

[14] Affirmed. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.