Skip to main content

Franklin Electric Co. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Department of Workforce Development

Ind. Ct. App.June 25, 2010No. 93A02-0911-EX-1121Cited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bradford, Riley, Mathias
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the Department of Workforce Development's determination that Franklin Electric's subsidiary corporations (FEM and FES) were not separate employers for unemployment insurance purposes, requiring them to transfer their experience accounts back to Franklin Electric and pay the higher contribution rate.

What This Ruling Means

# Franklin Electric Co. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals **What Happened** Franklin Electric Company created two subsidiary corporations called FEM and FES. The company structured these subsidiaries to operate separately for unemployment insurance purposes, which allowed them to maintain lower contribution rates—the money employers pay into the unemployment insurance system. The Department of Workforce Development challenged this arrangement, arguing the subsidiaries should not be treated as independent employers. **What the Court Decided** The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the Department of Workforce Development. The court ruled that FEM and FES were not truly separate employers. It ordered the subsidiaries to transfer their unemployment insurance experience accounts back to Franklin Electric and pay the higher contribution rate that applies to the parent company. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling prevents employers from using corporate structures to dodge higher unemployment insurance contributions. These contributions fund the unemployment insurance system that supports workers who lose their jobs. By closing this loophole, the court helped ensure that employers cannot artificially reduce their contributions through creative corporate arrangements, protecting the stability of benefits available to unemployed workers.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.