Court Opinion

ID: 9779837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:50:56.664983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:48.757985
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and must part ways with the majority's determination that the Review Board erred in denying R.D.'s application for training at the Art Institute. As the majority observes, we will reverse the Board's decision only if there is no substantial evidence to support the findings. Quakenbush v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 891 N.E.2d 1051, 1054 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). Moreover, because R.D. is appealing from a negative judgment, we will not reverse the Review Board's judgment unless it is contrary to law. Frye v. Vigo Cnty., 769 N.E.2d 188, 192 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).
20 C.FR. section 617.22(a)(8) of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program provides, in part, that "[tJraining shall be approved ... if the State agency determines that [] [there is a reasonable expectation of employment following completion of such training...." However, the explanatory provision of this section states:
The ... State administering agencies shall approve training for individual workers at the lowest reasonable cost which will lead to employment and will result in training opportunities for the largest number of adversely affected workers. This means that State administering agencies should avoid approving training for occupations that require an extraordinarily high skill level relative to the worker's current skillls]) level and for which total costs of training{,] including transportation and subsistence, are excessively high.
59 Fed.Reg. 906, 924 (Jan. 6, 1994) (emphasis added). Moreover, "available at a reasonable cost ... also means that training may not be approved when the costs of the training are unreasonably high in comparison with the average cost of training *1071other workers in similar occupations at other providers." 20 C.F.R. § Indeed, the goal of the Trade Act is to provide "more benefits to more workers." Anderson v. Rev. Bd., 412 N.E.2d 819, 822 (Ind.Ct.App.1981). And, as the Idaho Supreme Court observed in Creps v. Idaho Department of Labor, 149 Idaho 634, 238 P.3d 1284, 1288 (2010), state agencies should "allocate training dollars in a manner that the greatest number of workers will derive the greatest benefit for the lowest cost." Finally, 20 C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6)(iii)(B) provides that the "first consideration must be given to the lowest cost training which is available within the commuting area" in determining whether the costs of a particular training program are reasonable. (Emphasis added).
I do not quarrel with the majority's observation that RD. "is a gifted, self-trained graphic artist," as evidenced by the examples of R.D.'s work that were made a part of this record. Op. at 1065. Similarly, I do not question the Art Institute's ability to provide its students with an outstanding education at a cost of $64,106, or its post-graduation placement rate of 78.3%. However, while R.D.'s evidence showed that he could be trained in both web design and print design at the Art Institute, it is my view that the education costs associated with that course of study impedes the purpose of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. Indeed, three individuals could obtain two-year degrees in graphic arts from Ivy Tech for less than $64,106.
R.D. acknowledged at the hearing that the time involved in receiving a degree from either school was essentially the same length. And even if R.D. would have to complete two Associate Degree programs at Ivy Tech to obtain the same education that he could earn at the Art Institute through one program, the cost of two complete programs at Ivy Tech would still be $24,506.40 less than the tuition associated with one program at the Art Institute. In light of this evidence, I do not believe that it was erroneous for the Department to have focused on the costs associated with the various programs, or for the Review Board to have made its determination based on the comparative costs of the two programs.
I also note that notwithstanding R.D.'s claims that the training at Ivy Tech was simply not "suitable" for him, 20 C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6)(i) provides that "suitable training" means "that the training is appropriate for the worker given the worker's capabilities, background and experience." As the majority observes, R.D. was employed as a machine operator at General Electric at a salary of $24.95 per hour at the time of separation. R.D. testified at the hearing that he has trained himself as a graphic artist and has done "some part-time work in the past in the graphics field." Tr. p. 8. When examining the relevant considerations set forth, in 20 C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6)(), I cannot conclude that the Review Board erred in determining that the less expensive training at Ivy Tech was not suitable for R.D._ after comparing the costs of the two programs.
When considering the purposes of the Trade Act, namely, to provide workers with training at the lowest reasonable cost that will lead to employment and result in training opportunities for the largest number of adversely affected workers, I cannot agree that R.D. has successfully demonstrated that the Review Board's decision was unreasonable in denying his application for funding to attend the Art Institute. See Quakenbush, 891 N.E.2d at 1054 (observing that our task is to determine whether the Review Board's decision is reasonable in light of its findings). In short, R.D.'s request for training at the *1072Art Institute does not satisfy the "lowest cost" requirement of 20 - C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6). Thus, I would affirm the Review Board's decision.