ILNews

7th Circuit rules against Indianapolis attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today on the case of Paul K. Ogden v. James Atterholt, Carol J. Mihalik, and the Indiana Department of Insurance, No. 09-2953, which comes out of the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis.
 

Hired in late 2006 as manager for the state agency’s newly created title insurance division, Paul Ogden began working around his immediate supervisor, Chief Deputy Commissioner Carol Mihalik, who the court record says Ogden began to resent for what he described as an ineffective management style. He met with the state’s personnel division to file a formal complaint against Mihalik, and wrote a memo about reorganizing the state agency so that the title insurance division was removed from the consumer protection unit – specifically he alleged that Mihalik was incompetent or corrupt. After receiving that memo, Commissioner of Insurance James Atterholt and Mihalik met with Ogden and told him he could either resign or be fired for being “out of line.” Ogden chose resignation and signed a voluntary resignation letter so that he could keep his accrued vacation time and avoid being placed on Indiana’s “do not hire” list, the court opinion says.
Ogden sued the management and overall department on state claims involving “whistle-blowing,” unjust termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as federal claims on due process and a 42 U.S.C. §1983 violation of his First Amendment free speech rights.

The case was moved to federal court on those two claims, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson granted summary judgment for the defendants on both federal claims and remanded the suit to state court on the remaining claims. Ogden appealed, and now the three-judge 7th Circuit panel affirmed the magistrate judge’s ruling on the free speech claim.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the panel found that Ogden’s memo was not protected speech because it directly involved his work responsibilities. The appellate court wasn’t convinced that it should dissect the multiple issues touched on in that memo.

“The memo speaks for itself,” Judge Diane Sykes wrote for the panel, noting that it dealt specifically with Milhalik’s ability to supervise the division where he worked. “Ogden’s memo reflects exactly the sort of localized employment-related speech that Garcetti held was not entitled to First Amendment protection.”

In addition to the free speech issue, the judges also touched on what it called one final housekeeping item: the due process claim that had been raised at the District level. Ogden raised a concern on appeal that Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson’s resolution in favor of the defendants might foreclose litigation of that due process claim in the Indiana courts. The appellate panel noted that it wasn’t clear during the litigation at the District level whether that claim involved state or federal law, but Ogden clarified in a reply brief and at oral arguments that the issue was specifically focused on state law.

“The magistrate judge should not have taken up and resolved the due-process claim as if it arose under federal law – though it was understandable why she did so given the confusion in the pleadings,” Judge Sykes wrote. “That claim now returns to state court along with Ogden’s other state claims.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT