ILNews

COA upholds workplace restraining order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today analyzed for the first time the legal parameters required to affirm an order issued to protect a person under the Workplace Violence Restraining Order Act. The appellate court turned to the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act to provide context for analyzing cases under the WVROA.

In Teresa Torres v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, No. 49A04-0812-CV-719, the Family and Social Services Administration petitioned for a workplace violence restraining order against Teresa Torres on behalf of employee Carol Baker as a result of Torres' outburst during an Indiana Council on Independent Living meeting. Baker serves as assistant director of the Bureau of Rehabilitation Services, provides administrative support to ICOIL, and is required to attend ICOIL meetings. Torres, director of an independent living center in Northwestern Indiana, has attended ICOIL meetings since the 1990s and was appointed an ICOIL member in 2005 by Gov. Mitch Daniels. She uses an assisted-listening device during the meetings because she has a moderate hearing loss.

Torres has a history of loud outbursts during these meetings; she has also overturned a chair. As a result of her behavior, Capitol Police have had to intervene.

At a meeting in April 2008, Torres' listening device wasn't working, and she became angry. She threw it at the table where ICOIL members were seated; she paced around the room with clenched fists and screamed that she hoped everyone died. She eventually charged at Baker and screamed at her, but she never physically touched her. Capitol Police were called to the meeting.

FSSA filed the petition for restraining order against Torres because Baker was concerned about her safety because she was required to attend the meetings; she feared Torres may harm her while following her to work or to her home. The trial court granted the restraining order, which is set to expire Aug. 1, 2009.

The WVROA allows an employer to seek a temporary restraining order on behalf of an employee if the employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from the person and the unlawful violence happened at the employee's place of work.

Turning to the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act, the appellate court used this act to analyze the legal parameters required to affirm an order that is issued in favor of a protected person under the WVROA.

Torres argued the restraining order should be set aside because there was no evidence showing her actions would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and caused the victim emotional distress. However, the evidence shows one ICOIL member left the meeting during the outburst because she felt unsafe, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. Capitol Police have been called numerous times because of Torres' behavior. It was reasonable for the trial court to conclude a reasonable person attending the meeting would have suffered emotional distress because of Torres' actions.

In addition, Baker did suffer emotional distress - she couldn't eat before the meetings, feared Torres' unpredictable behavior, and felt drained after the meetings. She also worried Torres' may follow her to her office or home.

"In our view, the purpose of the WVRA, CPOA, and the relevant criminal laws, is to prohibit actions and behavior that cross the lines of civility and safety in the workplace, at home, and in the community. As a result, we can only conclude that the FSSA proved that Torres engaged in unlawful credible threats of violence against Baker," wrote the chief judge in affirming the trial court.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT