Stepp v. Employment Security Division Review Board

521 N.E.2d 350 (1988)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Stepp v. Employment Security Division Review Board

Indiana Court of Appeals
521 N.E.2d 350 (1988)

Facts

Dorothe Stepp (plaintiff) was discharged by the Medical Laboratory of Indianapolis, Indiana (laboratory) because she refused to perform testing on vials of bodily fluids that bore AIDS warning labels. The laboratory provided employees with safety gear and a manual that included guidelines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for working with potentially infectious specimens. There was no policy specific to AIDS specimens, but the topic was discussed in training sessions and meetings. Stepp and her supervisor also discussed safety precautions, but when asked to perform tests on a specimen marked with the warning label, Stepp refused. Stepp was advised that refusing to perform a test on any specimen she was assigned would be considered insubordination and would subject her to discipline, including dismissal. Stepp refused to test a second vial and was suspended for three days in accordance with the laboratory’s discipline policy. Stepp told her supervisors that her concern was not safety but rather a belief that performing the tests was against God’s will because AIDS was God’s plague on man. After returning from the suspension, Stepp again refused to work with a specimen bearing an AIDS warning label and was discharged. At an unemployment-benefits hearing before the Employment Security Division Review Board (board) (defendant), Stepp testified that she had heard of workers contracting AIDS from contaminated fluids, but Stepp did not present evidence that the laboratory’s precautions were insufficient to prevent spread of the disease. The board found that the laboratory dismissed Stepp for just cause and denied Stepp’s application for benefits. Stepp appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Conover, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership