ILNews

COA: Trust not bound by ISTA employment arbitration clause

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that two former leaders in the Indiana State Teachers Association who served as trustees for a legally separate insurance trust can’t force the trust’s governing board to adhere to arbitration clauses outlined in their ISTA employment contracts.

An appellate ruling came today in Warren L. Williams, et al. v. David Orentlicher, et al., No. 49A02-1003-PL-249, a case that raised questions about the overlap in employment contracts and common law fiduciary duties when the lines are blurred by someone functioning as an employee when performing those separate trustee tasks.

The case involves Warren L. Williams, the ISTA’s executive director from 1984 until his resignation in May 2009, and Robert Frankel, the labor organization’s deputy executive director from 2002 until his resignation in April 2009. With their ISTA positions, both also held ex officio roles with the ISTA Insurance Trust. The trust was created in 1985 as a common law trust legally separate from the ISTA and designed to provide insurance programs for Indiana school corporations to adopt as benefit plans for their employees. Williams served as a trustee and devoted about 20 percent of his total work time to the trust, while Frankel was the trust director and spent about 40 percent of his time on that activity.

Both renewed their ISTA employment contracts in July 2008, and while neither mentioned the trust, their responsibilities included anything the board of directors might define from time to time. Each contract contained an arbitration clause stipulating that “any issue arising regarding the performance of any obligation under the terms of this Agreement” would go through arbitration.

The two resigned in spring 2009, and that summer the trustees filed a complaint against Williams and Frankel and others who were alleged to have breached their fiduciary duties to the trust and conspired to place a bulk of the trust’s assets in alternative investments and private placements without board approval. As a result of this alleged malfeasance, the trustees said the trust could not function as a funding vehicle for medical insurance programs and long-term disability insurance and that left about 650 claimants without assistance for an estimated $34 million in benefits.

Williams and Frankel filed a motion to compel for arbitration on claims the ISTA had denied them compensation and benefits, and the trust responded that its case was separate from any employment contract arbitration issue because the pair was being sued in their capacities as trust officials, not their ISTA leadership positions. Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly denied the motion and later denied their motion to stay the trial court proceedings pending appeal. The Court of Appeals also denied that request in July.

The appellate court affirmed Judge Moberly’s findings and held that the trust is not a party to the employment contracts and that’s what is at issue when it comes to the motion to compel arbitration.

Citing a handful of federal precedents from across the country, the majority of Judge Edward Najam and Chief Judge John Baker determined that the legal duties that Williams and Frankel allegedly breached flowed to the trust as a matter of Indiana law and didn’t fall within the express terms of their employment contracts with the ISTA. Neither action is dependent upon the other, they ruled.

Judge Najam also pointed out that counsel for Williams and Frankel didn’t contend during oral arguments that the trust is an “alter ego of the ISTA” when the appellate court asked about that, and so the “close relationship theory” doesn’t apply here.

“As such, the Trust is not estopped from disclaiming the arbitration clauses, even if the Trust is a third party beneficiary to the contracts,” Judge Edward Najam wrote for the majority, which Chief Judge John Baker joined. “And the ‘close relationship’ between the Trust and the ISTA is not, on these facts, legally sufficient to compel the Trust to arbitrate its claims against Williams and Frankel.”

Judge James Kirsch dissented in a separate opinion, saying he’d reverse and order the trial court to grant the motion because Williams’ and Frankel’s respective ISTA responsibilities were an integral foundation for what they did as ex officio members for the trust.

“The affairs of the Indiana State Teachers Association included those of the Trust,” he wrote. “As defined by the ISTA Board of Trustees, the duties of the positions that Williams and Frankel held with ISTA required them to carry out their duties with the Trust. Having received the benefits of such agreements, the Trust should not now be able to disavow the arbitration provisions contained therein. It should be bound to the arbitration provisions of such agreements, to the same extent that ISTA itself is bound.”

Judge Kirsch cited TWH, Inc. v. Binford, 898 N.E. 2d 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), where the appellate court, with Judge Najam authoring, held that a third party beneficiary of a contract containing an enforceable arbitration provision is bound by such provision even though the beneficiary was not a signatory to the agreement.

But the majority declined to “expand” the Binford rule as it says Judge Kirsch advocates, saying that the Trust here is not asserting a contract nor disavowing an employment contract provision. Instead, this is a common law claim against Williams and Frankel independent of the pair’s employment contracts with the ISTA and any issues arising from that.
 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT