ILNews

County not dismissed in fired court clerks suits

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Clark County lost in its efforts to be dismissed from suits filed by two fired Clark Circuit Court employees. Chief Judge David F. Hamilton in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, ordered the county to file answers to the complaints no later than Sept. 6.

Former Clark Circuit Court employees Chanelle Vavasseur and Jeremy Snelling allege newly elected Judge Daniel Moore fired them Jan.1, 2009, from their jobs as clerks of the court based on their political affiliations. Judge Moore ran as a Democrat in the election, defeating Republican candidate and sitting Judge Abe Navarro. Vavasseur also claimed she was fired because she is African-American.

The plaintiffs each filed suit in May in state court; both cases were moved to District Court. They claim their First Amendment rights were violated and Vavasseur's equal protection rights were violated under the 14th Amendment.

Chief Judge Hamilton released the entry Monday on Clark County's motion to dismiss in Vavasseur and Snelling's cases in a combined entry, Chanelle M. Vavasseur and Jeremy Snelling v. State of Indiana, Clark County, Ind., Clark Circuit Court, and Daniel Moore, Nos. 4:09-CV-0072 and 4:09-CV-0073.

Clark County argued that because the plaintiffs were employees of the Circuit Court, which is an arm of the state, the county is not a proper defendant.

Despite both sides' arguments that the law is clearly on their respective sides that the District Court should order the other side to pay attorneys' fees for frivolous claims or frivolous motions to dismiss, Chief Judge Hamilton wrote Indiana law on the question isn't as transparent as either side claims.

The county relied on State ex rel. McClure v. Marion Superior Court, 158 N.E.2d 264 (Ind. 1959), in which the Indiana Supreme Court held the governor has the power to fill vacancies in the office of Circuit Court Clerk. The plaintiffs relied on Knoebel v. Clark County Superior Court No. 1, 901 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. App. 2009), which held both the court and the county were proper defendants when a court employee who was paid by the county sued for back pay under state law.

Knoebel lends support to Vavasseur and Snelling's view, even if the principal targets of the lawsuits are the decisions by the circuit judge to fire both plaintiffs, wrote the chief judge. But Knoebel might be distinguished from the instant case because that plaintiff Susan Knoebel was a probation officer rather than a clerk; she relied only on state law rather than federal law, and she challenged a decision only about pay levels rather than a termination.

"For now, with an undeveloped record on both the relevant facts and the law, the court denies both pending motions to dismiss filed by the county when the case was still in state court," wrote Chief Judge Hamilton.

The requests for attorney fees' on the question of the county's role as a defendant were also denied to all parties.

ADVERTISEMENT

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT