Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doughty v. Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 7, 2003No. 93A02-0206-EX-472Published

1DissentMattingly-May, Judge

I believe Schwab's company rule against "fighting and assaulting" is too vague to sustain Doughty's discharge. A review of the various company rules included in the exhibits indicates the rules relate to conduct that takes place on the work premises. If we extend beyond the work premises the employer's prohibition against "fighting and assaulting," I believe we misapply our own precedent and open a Pandora's box. I must therefore respectfully dissent.

The asserted basis for Doughty's discharge is Schwab's rule prohibiting "fighting and assaulting." (Exhibits Volume 1, pg. 17.) These terms are…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Best Lock Corp. v. Review BoardIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. Butler v. REVIEW BD. OF IND. DEPT. OF EMP. & TRAINING SERV.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API