ILNews

COA upholds denial of motion for class action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion for a class-action suit because a claimant seeking redress pursuant the Wage Claims Act has to first submit the claim to the Department of Labor before filing a lawsuit and can't bypass the statute if another member of the putative class has already submitted a claim.

Sherri Lemon was fired from her job at Wishard Health Services. She received her last regular wages on the following payday, but didn't receive her accumulated sick pay and paid time off until two paydays after she was let go. She sought a referral letter from the DOL granting permission to file a suit under the Wage Claims Act; the letter never mentioned widespread wage claim violations at Wishard.

Lemon filed a putative class-action suit in April 2007, claiming Wishard failed to pay her and at least 100 others in a timely fashioned as required by the Wage Claims Statute. The trial court denied her request for class action certification.

In her appeal in Sherri Lemon v. Wishard Health Services, No. 49A02-0804-CV-344, the Court of Appeals examined the Wage Claims Act, Indiana Code Section 22-2-9-2(a) and ruled a claimant under the statute has to first approach the DOL before he or she can file a lawsuit seeking unpaid wages or penalties, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. Lemon complied with the statute; other putative class members have not.

But the act of seeking class certification doesn't enable putative class members to avoid compliance with the statute, he continued. The act contemplates an individualized review of each claim and the DOL may then choose to pursue the claim, or refer it to the Attorney General who may refer it to a private attorney. The statute makes it clear a claim must work its way through these channels before it could be brought into court. The putative class also can't obtain a referral letter after a lawsuit was filed because the act requires a letter be obtained before the lawsuit is filed. In addition, there is a two-year statute of limitations that has passed for many of the putative class members, and despite Lemon's argument, there is no tolling of the statute of limitations, wrote the chief judge.

In a footnote in the opinion, the appellate court granted Wishard's motion to strike Lemon's reply brief. Even though she was not supposed to refer to a futility argument, Lemon's attorney did so and cited an unrelated deposition in support. The Court of Appeals found her attorney's accusation that Wishard was dishonest to "reflect a lack of professionalism."

"Even more indefensible are counsel's decisions to assert an argument not made to the trial court and to rely on information not in the record - in direct violation of our previous order," he wrote. Her attorney had been warned in the past about making incendiary statements. Because remanding for the trial court to calculate appellate attorney fees for Wishard would probably cost Wishard more preparing for the case than they would recoup, the Court of Appeals decided against it, but warned if Lemon's attorney's behavior reoccurred, it would award appellate attorney fees.

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