Court Opinion

ID: 9717147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:59:10.960744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.620316
License: Public Domain

MATHIAS, Judge,
concurring
I concur in this opinion because of the procedural posture of this case and the proper standards of review for both the Board and this Court on appeal.
Counsel ably pointed out the conflict between this Court’s previous analyses in Jeffboat, Inc. v. Review Board, 464 N.E.2d 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), and Love v. Heritage House, 463 N.E.2d 478 (Ind.Ct.App. 1983). However, counsel, the Board and this Court have, as of yet, failed to address the source of this recurring, apparent conflict: the merger of “just cause” reviews of I.C. 22 — 4—15—1 (d)(2) rules and I.C. 22-4-*110715-1 (d)(3) rules. “No fault” discipline policies tend to erase the distinction between these two subsections, which are written in the disjunctive, causing confused results. Until “no fault” absenteeism policies under I.C. 22 — 4—15—1(d)(3) are reviewed for reasonableness under Love, independent of non-absenteeism rules under I.C. 22-4-15-1 — (d)(2), the artificial conflict between the Jeffboat and Love results will persist.