ILNews

Appeals court affirms sending employee appeal back to agency

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of a fired Department of Correction employee’s petition for judicial review, finding that it was clear on the record that an administrative agency’s action was without evidentiary foundation. The appellate court noted the difficulty the judge had in conducting the judicial review due to deficiencies in recording testimony.

George Finney, who was a teacher at the Westville Correctional Facility, was fired after becoming belligerent and verbally abusive toward Westville officials after he was made to put his cell phone in his car before going into the facility. The Indiana State Employees’ Appeal Commission and an administrative law judge found that Westville proved it had cause to fire Finney. The full commission affirmed the ALJ’s determination, so Finney sought judicial review in Marion Superior Court.

There were numerous technical issues during the ALJ’s hearing, so most of the witnesses’ testimony wasn’t recorded and often recordings were inaudible, static, or blank. Only Finney’s and one other person’s testimony was intelligible.

Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer granted Finney’s petition, set aside the agency action and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

The COA affirmed, finding Westville didn’t show that the reviewing court committed reversible error. It’s clear from the record that the agency’s action was without evidentiary foundation, let alone substantial evidence as required by Indiana Code 4-21.5-5-14(d)(5), wrote Senior Judge Patrick Sullivan in Westville Correctional Facility, et al. v. George Finney, No. 49A05-1103-PL-92.

“Without question Judge Dreyer’s task in conducting his judicial review was made difficult, if not virtually impossible, by the woeful deficiencies in the tape recordings of the testimony of various witnesses so that the attempts to transcribe the proceedings from those tapes were unavailing,” he wrote. “Suffice it to say that our extensive compilation of what appears on the purported record of the proceedings before the administrative agency reflects an intolerable failure to preserve the evidence or to make sure that the recording equipment was adequate to the task at hand. The posture of the case at its various levels, including this level, cries out for remedial action with respect to SEAC’s method of preserving testimonial evidence.”

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT