P.P., Appellant-Petitioner v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] P.P. appeals the decision by the Review Board (“Review Board”) of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (“DWD”) that affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”) determination that P.P.’s unemployment insurance benefits should be suspended because he had not participated in required re-employment services. P.P. attempts to raise two challenges to the validity of the Review Board's decision, but his seven-sentence argument does not contain the cogent reasoning required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Accordingly, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] P.P. began receiving unemployment benefits in April 2024. In June, the DWD informed P.P. that he was required to report to WorkOne on June 19, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. for a “Reemployment Services & Eligibility Assessment (RESEA)” program. (Ex. Vol. at 44.) P.P. went to WorkOne on June 19, 2024, but as he was waiting for his appointment, he “decided to go over the handbook, and the, what is it called, the Department of Labor[’]s guidelines and stuff for the program[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 25.) P.P. noticed the Department of Labor's guidelines state “it's a voluntary program. So, if it's voluntary how can it be mandatory. It doesn't make sense.” (Id.) P.P. informed a WorkOne staff member that he was not going to stay for the program because it was not mandatory. In turn, the WorkOne staff member told P.P. that leaving might impact P.P.’s benefits. P.P. left anyway.

[3] WorkOne reported to the DWD that P.P. did not complete the RESEA program. A DWD claims investigator reached out to P.P. to determine why he did not complete the required program. P.P. insisted that he did not have to participate to get the benefit, that he put the money into the benefit program, and that DWD would be stealing his money if it did not pay him. (See Ex. Vol. at 39.) The claims investigator informed P.P. that he was required to attend the RESEA program to receive benefits and suspended his benefits. P.P. appealed the suspension.

[4] The ALJ conducted a hearing on September 5, 2024. Both P.P. and the DWD's claims investigator testified by telephone and introduced the exhibits they had provided in advance. On September 5, 2024, the ALJ entered an order that contained the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT:

The Department required the Claimant to participate in a mandatory Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (“RESEA”) program orientation scheduled on 06/19/2024 at 1:30 PM at the Indianapolis WorkOne office. The Department sent mailed notice (“Notice”) of this required orientation on 06/04/2024 to ․ the Claimant's address of record. The Department did not receive any notice of nondelivery or misdelivery. The Claimant did not receive the Notice; however, he did receive a reminder call from the WorkOne office on 06/18/2024.

The Claimant attended the RESEA orientation appointment on 06/19/2024; however, the Claimant left the appointment without completing the orientation. While the Claimant was waiting to be called, he researched the RESEA requirement and determined it to be a voluntary requirement.

Specifically, the Claimant noted language from the Department of Labor that stated “State participation in RESEA is voluntary. To operate a RESEA program a state must submit an annual plan detailing its service delivery strategies, projected number of participants served, and other essential information. During FY 2019, 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated RESEA programs.” Additionally, the Department of Labor's website stated “[b]eginning in 2005, the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration funded the voluntary UI Reemployment and Eligibility (REA) program.”

The Claimant asked the WorkOne representative how to withdraw from the RESEA program, and the representative advised the Claimant that he could not force him to stay but if the Claimant left, his benefits may be affected. The Claimant left the appointment, after repeatedly indicating that his benefits could not be stopped for leaving.

Claims Investigator Amy Taylor contacted the Claimant on 07/10/2024 and 07/11/2024 via telephone and email. The Claimant stated that “I do not have to take some class that I do not need nor benefit from it. Also I do not have to take some classes to get MY MONEY I WORKED FOR ․ If you're not going to give me my money because of this said class then that is stealing.” Ms. Taylor emailed the Claimant back on 07/11/2024 and informed him that “[i]t is a requirement of the claimants to attend the Re-employment (RESEA) meetings to be in compliance with receiving Unemployment Insurance.”

The Claimant initialed the Benefit Rights Agreement when he originally filed his claim for benefits, including the statement that reads “I understand that I am required to read the Claimant Handbook, which is available at this link: www.in.gov/dwd/files/Claimant_Handbook.pdf. I understand that I am required to follow instructions in the Claimant Handbook.” The Claimant Handbook contains information regarding the RESEA requirements, and states:

Required WorkOne In-Person Visit for Re-employment Services (RESEA)

Hoosiers receiving unemployment insurance benefits must visit their local WorkOne for a review of their work search records and an orientation to WorkOne services after their 4th week of benefits. You are also required by law to keep records of your weekly work search activities and be able to show a record of work search activities when requested by DWD. You are responsible for keeping a log of your weekly work search activities and may be required to produce that log at any time to DWD. If you are [sic] record of work search activities cannot be readily verified by DWD when requested, weekly benefits could be withheld, and you will be required to pay back any benefits received for any weeks in which your work search activities cannot be verified. If you fail to comply, you risk losing your unemployment insurance.

․

If you are selected for RESEA, you will receive a letter notifying you that you qualify and instructing you what to do next. If you are selected for these services, it is very important that you participate as required. Failure to respond to this letter and participate in re-employment assistance (RESEA) will result in suspension of your benefits.

The Claimant has not rescheduled or completed the required RESEA orientation appointment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

Indiana Code § 22-4-14-2 states:

(a) An unemployed individual is eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the individual has:

(1) registered for work at an employment office or branch thereof or other agency designated by the commissioner within the time limits that the department by rule adopts; and

(2) subsequently reported with the frequency and in the manner, either in person or in writing, that the department by rule adopts.

(b) Failure to comply with subsection (a) shall be excused by the commissioner or the commissioner's authorized representative upon a showing of good cause therefor. The department shall waive or alter the requirements of this section as to such types of cases or situations that compliance with such requirements would be oppressive.

(c) The department shall provide job counseling or training to an individual who remains unemployed for at least four (4) weeks. The manner and duration of the counseling shall be determined by the department.

In order to remain eligible for benefits, Ind. Code § 22-4-14-3 requires a Claimant to “participate in reemployment services and reemployment and eligibility assessment activities as required by [Ind. Code § 22-4-1-3.2] or when directed by the department as provided under [Ind. Code § 22-4-14-3.5] ․”

Indiana Code § 2-4-14-3(b)(4) states:

An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the individual participates in reemployment services and reemployment and eligibility assessment activities as required by section 3.2 of this chapter or when directed by the department as provided under section 3.5 of this chapter, unless the department determines that:

(A) the individual has completed the reemployment services; or

(B) failure by the individual to participate in or complete the reemployment services is excused by the director under IC 22-4-14-2(b).

The Claimant failed to comply with the reporting requirement. The Department sent the Notice to Claimant on 06/04/2024, and the Notice was sent to the correct address of record. While the Claimant did not receive the mailed Notice, he was contacted via telephone and was aware of the scheduled orientation date. The Claimant was present for the RESEA orientation on 06-19-2024; however, the Claimant determined that the RESEA orientation was voluntary and left without completing the orientation appointment, despite being advised of the potential consequences by the WorkOne representative. While it is voluntary for a state to require reemployment services in order to qualify for unemployment benefits, Indiana has chosen to require its unemployment benefit applicants to complete reemployment services in order to qualify for ongoing benefits per Indiana Code [§] 22-4-14-3.

The Claimant dd not attend the RESEA orientation as scheduled on 06/19/2024, and he has not yet rescheduled or completed the RESEA orientation. Therefore, Claimant did not comply with the reporting requirement pursuant to Ind. Code § 22-4-14-2.

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that with respect to this issue the claimant is ineligible to receive benefits from the week ending 06/22/2024 through the week ending 03/01/2025.

(Ex. Vol. at 54-6) (emphases in original) (internal record citations omitted).

[5] P.P. appealed the ALJ's decision to the Review Board, which did not hold a hearing or accept additional evidence. After reviewing the record, the Review Board adopted and incorporated the ALJ's findings and conclusions and affirmed the ALJ's decision on September 27, 2024.

Discussion and Decision

[6] P.P. brings this appeal pro se. Litigants are not given special consideration when they appear pro se. Kelley v. State, 166 N.E.3d 936, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). Rather, “[i]t is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. This means that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Id. (quoting Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citations omitted), reh'g denied).

[7] Appellate Rule 46 outlines the sections that should be included in an Appellant's Brief. That list includes a Statement of Case and a Statement of Facts, which should outline the procedural history and factual history, respectively, that led to an appeal. See App. R. 46(A)(5) & (6). P.P. did not provide either of these sections in his brief, which impeded our review by not explaining why or how the case before us arose. Nor did P.P. provide a standard of review for the issues on appeal, as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b). Finally, P.P.’s argument section, which attempts to raise two separate issues, is only seven sentences long. While P.P. cited some legal authority in those sentences, he did not explain how that legal authority was relevant to the validity of the Review Board decision that is before us.

[8] For example, P.P. notes that the federal government made the RESEA program voluntary for states while Indiana made the program mandatory for Hoosiers seeking unemployment benefits, and then P.P. asserts: “By doing this the Department of Workforce Developments claims investigator, Administrative Law Judge and Review Board all impeeded on constitutional rights of 42 U.S. Code § 2000a, 2000e(h) and Indiana Code § 1-1-2-1.” (Appellant's Br. at 5) (errors in original). P.P. has not explained why the federal government's declaration that states may voluntarily choose to participate in RESEA meant that Indiana could not make RESEA mandatory for Hoosiers seeking unemployment benefits or how the requirement that he receive assistance with his job search from WorkOne constituted the type of discrimination in public accommodations prohibited by 42 U.S. Code section 2000a or constituted a violation of the hierarchy of laws defined in Indiana Code section 1-1-2-1. Nor has he explained why the definition of “industry affecting commerce” in 42 U.S. Code section 2000e(h) is relevant to his argument. His single sentence does not constitute the “cogent reasoning” required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

[9] P.P.’s second argument asserts the claims investigator, ALJ, and Review Board have a “financial conflict of interest going by 29 U.S. Code § 401.” (Appellant's Br. at 5.) In support, he references an article about ethical problems that allegedly appeared in the Indianapolis Star in November 2021, but he has not explained how the federal code section in which Congress declared the purposes and policy behind creating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Procedure, see 29 U.S.C.A. § 401 (“Congressional declaration of findings, purposes and policy”), demonstrates a “financial conflict of interest” for the individuals who determined P.P. was not entitled to benefits. Accordingly, this argument also fails for lack of the cogent reasoning required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

[10] We prefer to address appeals on the merits when possible. See Z.C. v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 213 N.E.3d 1101, 1105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (addressing argument on merits despite appellant's failure to include a standard of review). However, “where the appellant's noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived.” Basic, 58 N.E.3d at 984. We may not “become an ‘advocate for a party, or address arguments that are ․ too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.’ ” Id. (quoting Perry v. Anon. Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, cert. denied 57 U.S. 873 (2015)). As we cannot become an advocate for P.P., we hold his arguments are waived from our consideration. See, e.g., Perry, 25 N.E.3d at 105 n.1 (waiving constitutional argument because it was too poorly developed to consider).

Conclusion

[11] Because P.P. waived the arguments that he attempted to raise by failing to explain the relevance of the law that he cited to the circumstances that he faced, we affirm the Review Board's decision.

[12] Affirmed.

May, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.