Connection lost
Server error
Jones v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employee who initially agreed to a work schedule as a condition of employment, but then accepted the employer’s unilateral change to that schedule, was denied unemployment benefits because her acceptance modified the original agreement, negating her claim of quitting for good cause.
Legal Significance: An employee’s acceptance of a unilateral change to a key employment condition constitutes a modification of the employment agreement, thereby waiving the right to claim “good cause” for quitting based on that change for unemployment benefit purposes.
Jones v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Tenner R. Jones accepted a position as a cook on the express condition that she would only work from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. due to family responsibilities, a term to which her employer, Marian Hill, agreed. Several months later, the employer informed Jones her hours would be changed to 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that she would be replaced if she did not work the new schedule. Jones initially protested but then explicitly agreed to accept the change. The following day, she reversed her decision, stating she could not work the new hours because of her four children. She agreed to work until a replacement was found and then terminated her employment. The Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division denied her application for unemployment compensation, finding she voluntarily left her employment without good cause in connection with her work. Jones appealed the Board’s decision, arguing the change in working conditions constituted good cause.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did an employee who quit after her employer changed a previously agreed-upon work schedule leave her employment without good cause when she had initially accepted the change before resigning?
Yes. The court affirmed the administrative board’s denial of benefits, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did an employee who quit after her employer changed a previously agreed-upon work schedule leave her employment without good cause when she had initially accepted the change before resigning?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates how an employee's acceptance of a modified employment term Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi
Legal Rule
While an employer's unilateral change to a contractually agreed-upon working condition constitutes Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur si
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the modification of the employment agreement and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt moll
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employee who accepts an employer’s unilateral change to agreed-upon work