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
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.