ILNews

COA: Man needed to submit claim under Wage Claims Statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An employee’s status at the time he or she files the claim is the relevant inquiry in determining whether he or she proceeds under the Wage Payment Statute or the Wage Claims Statute, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Robert and Keisha Hollis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued Defender Security Co., alleging Defender had violated the Wage Payment Statute by failing to pay agreed wages in a timely fashion. Several months earlier, Robert was “involuntarily separated” from Defender. The trial court dismissed Robert’s claims. Only his claims are at issue in this interlocutory appeal.

The Wage Payment Statute and Wage Claims Statute both deal with wage disputes, but involve different categories of claimants. The Wage Payment Statute refers to current employees and those who have voluntarily left employment. The Wage Claims Statute refers to employees who have been separated from work by their employer and employees whose work has been suspended as a result of an industrial dispute.

In Robert Hollis, et al. v. Defender Security Company, No. 49A02-1004-PL-464, Robert argued his claims shouldn’t have been dismissed because they were brought under the Wage Payment Statute so he wasn’t required to submit them to the Department of Labor. Based on St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr. Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699, 704 (Ind. 2002), he claimed which statute to proceed under depends on the employee’s status when the claim accrues as opposed to the employee’s status when he or she files the claim.

Robert argued it is irrelevant that he was involuntarily separated from Defender before he filed his complaint because he wasn’t alleging a violation of the Wage Claims Statute. The judges interpreted his argument to be that an employee who was involuntarily separated would have to file a complaint based on the Wage Payment Statute for alleged violations that occurred prior to the separation. An employee would then submit a separate claim with the DOL under the Wage Claims Statute for alleged violations that occurred during the final pay period.

The judges determined that the relevant inquiry is to the status of the employee at the time he or she filed the claim as to what statute he or she should proceed under, Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

“Robert was involuntarily separated from Defender when he filed his claims and, as such, his claims fell under the Wage Claims Statute. Instead of submitting his claims to the DOL, as required by Wage Claims Statute, Robert improperly filed a complaint based on the Wage Payment Statute,” he wrote. “Because Robert did not allege any Wage Claims Statute violations and submit his claims to the DOL, the trial court properly dismissed Robert’s claims.”
 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT