ILNews

COA: Names in workforce development cases aren't confidential

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From now on, the Indiana Court of Appeals will publish full names of parties on workforce development review board cases after determining state statute doesn’t require those to be kept confidential in public court records.

A three-judge panel addressed that issue in Friday’s ruling in LaDon A. Moore v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Whitington Homes and Services, No. 93A02-1005-EX-529.

The case involves LaDon A. Moore, who worked as program manager at Whitington Homes and Services for Families and Children starting in May 2004 before she was eventually terminated in September 2009 because of repeated warnings about her work behavior. The human resources manager had verbally warned Moore in May 2008 about complaints from co-workers that her behavior was rude and disrespectful, instead of being open, polite and accommodating. A written warning came less than a year later and the second written disciplinary warning came in September 2009, notifying her that any future issues would result in her immediate termination. Four days later, Moore received a third warning that resulted in her dismissal.

A workforce development administrative law judge concluded that Moore was discharged for cause and the review board agreed and affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

Moore appealed pro se challenging the evidence as insufficient, and the appellate court determined the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed because the Whitington’s rule on employment was reasonable and uniformly enforced and because Moore lacked evidence rebutting Whitington’s case.

But in the course of the appeal, the review board filed a motion to publish the names of the parties not only in this specific case but also all future cases workforce development appeals. Specifically, the review board contends that it’s difficult to administer the high volume of cases in the appellate system where the people’s names and employing units are not disclosed, and that it’s too inefficient and time-consuming to rely on cause numbers through the Appellate Clerk’s Online Docket.

“The Review Board contends that although Indiana Code section 22-4-19-6 protects unemployment records from public access and from use while that information resides with the Department, the names of individuals and employing units need not be kept confidential in actions involving the court system in an otherwise public proceeding. We agree,” wrote Judge John Baker.

Looking at the state statute that’s been mostly unchanged since 1947, the appeals court noted that the initials-only practice began following Jan. 1, 2010, amendments to Administrative Rule 9(G) that governs public access to court records. The court rule incorporated a reference to I.C. 22-4-19-6, and since then, 16 reported cases involving the review board have come from the Court of Appeals – four used the person’s full name. This amendment has led some to believe the courts are now required to keep the names of parties confidential on appeal, while others disagree.

The appeals judges determined it contains an exception for court orders and even another Administrative Rule 9(G) provision says that the courts may disclose names “as essential to the resolution of litigation or appropriate to further the establishment of precedent or the development of law.” Initials only can make it more difficult for legal searches on precedent and make cases virtually indistinguishable from another, the court determined.

“In sum, Administrative Rule 9(G) merely incorporated Section 22-4-19-6 as it had been interpreted for decades,” Judge Baker wrote. “With that in mind, reading the authority granted by Administrative Rule 9(G)(9)(d) together with section 22-3-19-6(b)’s exception for court orders and considering the Review Board’s interpretation of its own obligations under the statute as well as the interpretation of the statutes by the Indiana Supreme Court and this Court in countless cases for over sixty years, we believe it is appropriate for this Court to use the full names of parties in routine appeals from the Review Board.”

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT