ILNews

COA upholds judgment in favor of employer in wrongful termination suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of Insurance in a lawsuit filed by a former employee claiming wrongful termination.

In Paul K. Ogden v. Stephen Robertson, et al., No. 49A05-1101-CT-45, Paul Ogden was hired in November 2006 as a division manger in the title division of IDOI. His job was classified as a grade executive broad band position. He worked under the supervision of chief deputy commissioner Carol Mihalik. Within months, Ogden verbalized frustrations to Commissioner James Atterholt regarding Mihalik’s supervision.

At one point, there was confusion over the preparation of insurance bulletins, and Ogden interpreted his conversation with Atterholt to mean that he was to work around Mihalik to develop the bulletins. Mihalik sent Ogden a “counseling letter” in September 2007, claiming he violated IDOI polices in drafting the bulletins and that she and Atterholt need to see bulletins before they are disseminated. The letter was not classified as a disciplinary measure.

Ogden also met with State Personnel Department employees to file a formal complaint against Mihalik alleging many violations, including personnel and legal ones. An investigation was opened. Ogden also sent a memorandum to Atterholt asking that the Title Insurance Division be removed from Mihalik’s unit so that it could operate under a different chief deputy and that the division be moved to a different floor.

As a result of the letter, Ogden was given two options by IDOI officials – resign or be terminated for being “out of line” requesting reorganization of the division. Ogden agreed to resign. He then filed the suit alleging violations of the First and 14th amendments, Article I, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution, the Whistleblower Law, Indiana Code 4-15-10-5, and state due process. The trial court granted summary judgment to the IDOI defendants, finding that the Whistleblower Law provided no private cause of action for which Ogden could seek relief through a civil lawsuit, Ogden’s memorandum wasn’t protected speech under the state constitution, and that memorandum was not the motivating factor in his forced resignation.

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment, finding that the memorandum wasn’t protected speech under the Indiana Constitution; that Ogden wasn’t entitled to due process protections under Indiana personnel policy and Executive Order 05-14, which addresses when an employee may file a complaint regarding dismissal; and that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his claim that he was wrongfully terminated.

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. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  2. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  3. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  4. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  5. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

ADVERTISEMENT