ILNews

COA: Department of Labor should review claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found that a woman’s lawsuit for unpaid wages should have first been brought before the Indiana Department of Labor before she filed her action.

In Brandy L. Walczak v. Labor Works-Fort Wayne, LLC, d/b/a Labor Works, No. 02A04-1109-PL-509, Brandy Walczak, who filed her suit on her behalf and all others similarly situated, appealed the grant of summary judgment for Labor Works – Fort Wayne. Labor Works provides temporary day-laborer services to business. Those who seek work assignments for the day must show up at Labor Work’s facility that morning and there is no guarantee there will be work. Walczak sought work sporadically through Labor Works over the course of nearly four months. She was hired to work one day. She filed her lawsuit in February 2010 alleging violations of the Wage Payment Statute and the Wage Deduction Statute.

Labor Works filed for summary judgment, claiming Walczak didn’t have the right to file the lawsuit and the court didn’t have jurisdiction over her claim.

The appellate court reversed summary judgment, finding that she had to first submit her claim to the Department of Labor for resolution.

“The determination of whether, when she filed her complaint in the instant action, Walczak was separated from the payroll by Labor Works within the meaning of the Wage Claims Statute is a question of fact, not a matter of statutory interpretation,” wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

The judges held that this type of fact-sensitive inquiry should be resolved in the first instance by the administrative agency. The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims until the DOL had made a determination on that question.

The COA ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint.

 

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