Jones v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
399 N.E.2d 844 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who accepts an employer's unilateral change to a previously agreed-upon working condition is deemed to have abandoned that prior condition. Consequently, if the employee later terminates their employment for reasons related to that change, they have not left for "good cause in connection with the work" and are ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Facts:
- Tenner R. Jones was hired by Marian Hill as a cook.
- At the time of hiring, Jones and her supervisor agreed that her hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to accommodate her family responsibilities.
- In March 1978, Jones's supervisor informed her that her hours were being changed to 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
- The supervisor told Jones that if she did not work the new hours, someone else would be hired who would.
- After protesting, Jones agreed to accept the change of hours.
- The next day, Jones told her supervisor that she could not work the new hours because she had four children at home to care for.
- Jones continued to work until a replacement was found and then terminated her employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Tenner R. Jones applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied by the Indiana Employment Security Division.
- Jones appealed the denial to the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division.
- The Review Board affirmed the denial of benefits, finding Jones voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
- Jones (appellant) now appeals the Review Board's decision to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee who initially accepts a unilateral change in her work schedule, but then quits due to an inability to meet the new schedule because of family responsibilities, voluntarily leave her employment without good cause in connection with the work?
Opinions:
Majority - Garrard, J.
Yes. An employee who accepts a change in working conditions has abandoned the prior agreement and cannot later claim the change constitutes good cause for leaving. While an employee has a right to place conditions on employment which, if agreed to, become contractual, the employee can also waive those conditions. By agreeing to the new hours, Jones abandoned the previously agreed-upon condition. Her subsequent reason for leaving—her family responsibilities—is not considered good cause in connection with the work under the law. The employer’s statement about hiring a replacement was not coercive but rather presented Jones with a choice, and she chose, of her own free will, to accept the new terms before changing her mind.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the doctrine of waiver or abandonment in the context of employment agreements and unemployment benefits. It establishes that an employee's acceptance of a change in working conditions, even if reluctant, nullifies the original agreement for the purpose of claiming unemployment benefits. The case places the onus on employees to reject unilateral changes to their employment contract immediately if they wish to preserve their claim that such a change constitutes 'good cause' for leaving. This precedent makes it more difficult for employees who briefly acquiesce to a change to later claim constructive discharge or a good cause termination.
