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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT