ILNews

Appeals court hears back-pay arguments

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Attorneys argued before the Indiana Court of Appeals on an appeal of a Marion Superior judge’s award of more than $42 million to a class of thousands of current and former state employees wanting to recover back pay for unequal wages earned between 1973 and 1993.

Technical difficulties at the appellate court initially prevented the Aug. 23 arguments from being broadcast live or by webcast, but typically those arguments can be viewed online at http://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/. The case is Paula Brattain, et al. v. Richmond State Hospital, et al., No. 49A02-0908-CV-718.

The Indiana Attorney General is appealing the July 2009 ruling in which Marion Superior Judge John Hanley awarded the judgment to as many as 12,000 or more past and present state employees who’d fought to recover back pay for unequal wages earned during those two decades. Judge Hanley found in favor of four subclasses of plaintiffs who’d sued about 16 years ago and nearly reached a settlement last year. The judge found that by requiring plaintiffs and others to work 40 hours a week in “split classes” during those years, the state violated the “equal pay for comparable work” regulation and breached its employment contracts with plaintiffs.

Analyzing the four types of “split classes” the plaintiffs fall into depending on where they worked, Judge Hanley awarded $20.9 million to overtime-eligible employees within state “merit agencies;” $16.7 million to overtime-eligible workers not in merit agencies; $2.7 million to overtime-exempt employees in merit agencies; and $1.9 million to overtime-exempt employees not at merit agencies.

In his ruling, Judge Hanley noted a recent legislative special session estimate showing Indiana spends approximately $38 million per day every day to operate.

Judge Hanley stayed his judgment while the state appeals the outcome of the 17-year-old class action.
 

Rehearing to "Judge awards $42.4 million in back pay suit" IL Aug. 5-18, 2009

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT