employer rule in Indiana

2017A. Vicarious Liability [26] Vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior “where the employee has inflicted harm while acting ‘within the scope of employment.’’ Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281, 283 (Ind. 2008).

2014A. Respondeat Superior Liability Vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer under the doctrine of *107 respondeat superior “where the employee has inflicted harm while acting ‘within the scope of employment.’ ” Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281, 288 (Ind.2008).

2010"The general rule is that vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior where the employee has inflicted harm while acting 'within the scope of employment'" Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281, 284 (Ind.2008) (quoting Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind.1999)).

2008The general rule is that vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior where the employee has inflicted harm while acting “within the scope of employment.” Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281, 283 (Ind.2008) (citing Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind.1999); Warner Trucking, Inc. v. Carolina Cas.

2007To establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under Indiana Code section 22-4-15-1(d)(2), it is necessary for the employer to show that the claimant: (1) knowingly violated; (2) a reasonable; and (3) uniformly enforced rule. [6] Stanrail Corp., 735 N.E.2d at 1203 .

2007To establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under Indiana Code section 22-4-15-1(d)(2), it is necessary for the employer to show that the claimant: (1) knowingly violated; (2) a reasonable; and (3) uniformly enforced rule. 6 Stanrail Corp., 735 N.E.2d at 1203 .

2017An employer is not held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because it did anything wrong, but “because of the [employer’s] relationship to the wrongdoer.” Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind. 1999)). [27] If a fact-finder determines that pharmacist LaCross, while acting within the scope of her employment, filled Mataranglo’s prescription and subsequently disclosed that information to Geisler, Meijer can also be held liable for LaCross’ wrongful act.

2016Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99, 106-07 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (citing Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d, 281, 283 (Ind.2008)), affd on reh’g, trans. denied.

2015“A uniformly enforced rule is one that is carried out in such a way that all persons under the same conditions and in the same circumstances are treated alike.” City of Carmel v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Development, 970 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

2014City of Carmel v. Review Bd., 970 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

2015Id. at 1020 (citing Stanrail, 735 N.E.2d at 1203 ).

2014To establish a prima facie case for just cause discharge for a violation of an employer rule, the employer must show that the claimant: “(1) knowingly violated; (2) a reasonable; and (3) uniformly enforced rule.” Coleman v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 905 N.E.2d 1015, 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

2003"In order to establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under [Indiana Code Section] 22-4-15-1(d)(2), the employer must demonstrate that the employee knowingly violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule." McClain v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1318 (Ind.1998). "[AJn employer's asserted work rule must be reduced to writing and introduced into evidence in order for us to fairly and reasonably evaluate a determination that an employee was justly discharged for a knowing violation of that rule.

2003"In order to establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under [Indiana Code Section] XX-X-XX-X(d)(2), the employer must demonstrate that the employee knowingly violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule." McClain v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1318 (Ind.1998). "[A]n employer's asserted work rule must be reduced to writing and introduced into evidence in order for us to fairly and reasonably evaluate a determination that an employee was justly discharged for a knowing violation of that rule.

1996Love v. Heritage House Convalescent Center (1983), Ind.App., 463 N.E.2d 478, 482 ; 2 contra Jeffboat Inc. v. Review Bd. (1984), Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 377, 380 (employer plan is not per se unreasonable if some excused absences may be counted toward a maximum limit of absences in a year).

1990Div. (1984), Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 377 , where an employee's violation of an employer rule dealing with absenteeism constituted just cause for discharge, even though the employee's absence was justified by illness.

2018Smith v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 754 N.E.2d 18, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied (2002). [14] The Act also sets forth numerous affirmative defenses to liability available to an employer that bar an employee’s worker’s compensation claim.

2011Thus, this court has held that preparation for competition against an employer is not a violation of the duty of loyalty and the prohibition against self-dealing so long as the employee "continue[s] to exert his best efforts on behalf of his employer." Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen, 874 N.E.2d 1065, 1070 (Ind.Ct.

2011Thus, this court has held that preparation for competition against an employer is not a violation of the duty of loyalty and the prohibition against self-dealing so long as the employee “eontin-ue[s] to exert his best efforts on behalf of his employer.” Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen, 874 N.E.2d 1065, 1070 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (going on to cite Potts v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp.

2011In Giovanoni, we held that “ ‘just cause’ determinations, as they pertain to an employee’s discharge, must be consistent with the legislative purpose underlying the [Unemployment Compensation] Act — to provide financial assistance to an individual who ... [is unemployed] through no fault of his or her own.” 927 N.E.2d at 910.

2011The general rule is that vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior where the employee has inflicted harm while acting “within the scope of employment.” Gilbert v. Loogootee Realty, LLC, 928 N.E.2d 625, 629 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted), tram, denied.

2003We believe that such is the minimum evidence necessary for the employer to satisfy its burden, by substantial evidence of probative value, that it has a rule and that that rule is reasonable and uniformly enforced." Watterson v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Employment and Training Servs., 568 N.E.2d 1102, 1105 (Ind.Ct.App.1991).

2003We believe that such is the minimum evidence necessary for the employer to satisfy its burden, by substantial evidence of probative value, that it has a rule and that that rule is reasonable and uniformly enforced." Watterson v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Employment and Training Servs., 568 N.E.2d 1102, 1105 (Ind.Ct.App.1991).

2003In Best Lock Corp. v. Review Bd., 572 N.E.2d 520, 523 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) we noted our prior holdings that a rule which regulates an employee's on-duty activities and which protects the interest of the employer is reasonable[;] . when a rule purports to govern employees' off-duty activities, the conduct regulated must bear some relationship with the employer's business interest in order for the rule to be considered reasonable.

2003In Best Lock Corp. v. Review Bd., 572 N.E.2d 520, 523 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) we noted our prior holdings that a rule which regulates an employee's on-duty activities and which protects the interest of the employer is reasonable[;]... when a rule purports to govern employees' off-duty activities, the conduct regulated must bear some relationship *529 with the employer's business interest in order for the rule to be considered reasonable.