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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT