ILNews

Appellate judges rule on court warrant officer's claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled an Anderson City Court judge didn’t wrongly reassign a police warrant officer from his courtroom because the two didn’t share an employee-employer relationship that would allow for a suit under the Indiana Wage Claim Statute.

A unanimous ruling came Tuesday in Mark McCann v. The City of Anderson, Indiana and The Hon. Donald Phillippe, No. 48A02-1009-PL-1060, involving an Anderson Police Department officer who became a warrant officer for the city court in 1998, about three years after his police service began. Judge Donald Phillippe presided over that court, and Mark McCann’s duties included receiving all court warrants issued, maintaining computer files of each wanted person and all probationers, and issuing reports to his supervisors in the police department. While serving as warrant officer, McCann discovered that a probation officer with similar duties was receiving a paycheck from both the APD and City Court.

In 2005, Judge Phillippe requested that McCann be reassigned based on reports that he was “rude and inappropriate” with defendants and prisoners in the courtroom. He was reassigned to a different police department division, and complaints he lodged were dismissed for having no merit. In December 2006 he filed a claim against the city and judge. Special Judge Mary Willis for the Madison Superior Court granted summary judgment for the city and court, finding that McCann wasn’t an employee who could bring a claim under the state’s wage statute.

That statute specifically states, “Whenever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular pay day for pay period in which separation occurred.”

Analyzing whether that employer-employee relationship existed in this case, the appellate panel looked at factors such as the right to discharge, mode of payment, supplying tools or equipment, belief of the parties about that relationship, control over the means used in the results reached, the length of employment, and establishment of the work boundaries.

Though some factors indicated McCann was an employee, the court ultimately decided he was not. Most importantly, the court analyzed the right of the employer to exercise control over the employee and determined that McCann remained under the supervision and control of the Anderson Police Department.

“Thus, overall, four of the seven factors, including the most important ‘Control over the Means Used’ indicate that McCann was not an employee of the City Court,” Judge Melissa May wrote. “Because the City Court was not McCann’s employer, he cannot be due any ‘unpaid wages’ from the City Court. Therefore, he cannot assert a claim against the City Court under the Indiana Wage Statute. Accordingly, we affirm.”

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