ILNews

Court cuts $42.4 million state back pay award

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today significantly slashed a $42.4 million damages award against the state, cutting the period from which employees can recover back pay from 20 years to about two months.

In its ruling in Richmond State Hospital, et al. v. Paula Brattain, et. al., No. 49A02-0908-CV-718, a three-judge appellate panel found that thousands of past and present state workers can still recover money they should have earned on the job. But the judges reversed one part of a Marion Superior judge’s decision from last year that some of those employees could recover back pay for a period from 1973 to 1993.

Instead, the appellate court held that certain employees shouldn’t be able to recover for that two-decade period but instead only for a time limited to 10 days before the class-action suit was filed July 29, 1993, to when the state courts abolished the split class system in September 1993.

While attorneys are studying the 54-page decision, initial estimates gleaned from the ruling are that it reduces the damages for merit-based employees from $23.5 million to an estimated couple million dollars. The remaining $18.6 million awarded to non-merit employees would not be affected by this change and the appellate court affirmed that aspect.

This appeal by the Indiana Attorney General’s Office follows a July 2009 decision by Marion Superior Judge John Hanley, which awarded a total of $42.4 million to as many as 15,000 or more past and present state workers who’d fought to recover back pay for unequal wages earned during those two decades. The trial judge found that by requiring plaintiffs and others to work 40 hours a week in “split classes” during those years, the state violated the “equal pay for comparable work” regulation and breached its employment contracts.

In total, the judge’s analysis of the four classes translated to: $20.9 million for overtime-eligible merit employees, $2.7 million for overtime-exempt merit employees, $16.7 million for overtime-eligible non-merit employees, and $1.9 million for overtime-exempt non-merit workers.

On the merit employee aspect, the state AG’s Office had argued for the limited liability period rather than 20 years based on an Indiana Supreme Court decision made almost a decade ago: State Employees’ Appeals Commission .v Bishop, 741 N.E. 2d 1229 (Ind. 2001), (Bishop II), which was a consolidation of Indiana State Employees’ Appeals Commission v. Greene, 716 N.E. 2d 54, 57-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), and Indiana State Employees’ Appeals Commission v. Bishop (Bishop I), 721 N.E. 2d 881, 884-85 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). In those cases, the Court of Appeals found employees were entitled to back pay for only a limited period starting 10 days before the respective complaints were filed. The Supreme Court upheld that finding.

Reaching its conclusion, the panel noted that Indiana Code Section 4-15-2-35 and former 31 Indiana Administrative Code 2-13-1 apply only to merit employees and that Greene, Bishop I, and Bishop II are dispositive.

“However, we recognize that the effect creates an apparent anomaly. Indiana Code Section 4-15-2-35 and former Indiana Administrative Code 2-13-1 do not apply to non-merit employees and cannot be considered part of their contractual relationship with the State, so their back pay is not limited by the ten-day rule,” the court wrote. “Nevertheless, we are constrained to follow our supreme court’s pronouncement in Bishop II. The enterprise of creating law is outside our sphere of authority. Although our supreme court has the ability to revisit the issue and redefine the law, until that time, we are obliged to apply it as it currently exists.”

This panel – made up of authoring Judge Terry Crone with Chief Judge John Baker and Judge Michael Barnes concurring – instructs the Marion Superior Court to recalculate the merit-employees’ award based on the limited time period in 1993. Exactly when that ending period date should be is something the trial court will also have to examine because the Greene, Bishop I, and Bishop II rulings aren’t clear on whether the split class system was abolished on Sept. 19, 1993, or Sept. 12, 1993.

In addition to the liability period and damages aspects, the Court of Appeals found that statutory requirements for class certification were met; the trial judge didn’t err in finding that merit employees were excused from exhausting administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile; the trial court correctly determined which class the employees belonged in; there weren't any errors in admitting certain evidence; and that the state failed to establish all the elements of laches to bar the employees’ claims.

The state AG’s office was reviewing the ruling and not able to comment by early afternoon, while Indianapolis attorney John Kautzman for the plaintiffs said this is a mixed ruling that can be seen both as a victory and a defeat for the state employees.

“We’re seeing it as a resounding success that the court affirmed the state’s liability and that we got a victory on the non-merit employees, but that’s tempered by the merit employees’ (damages) being substantially reduced.”

Kautzman and his legal team are reviewing what comes next, but he said one step may be to ask the Court of Appeals for a rehearing to offer a clarification on its methodology in order to determine when the state actually received notice of the issue – 1988 or the time the suit was filed in 1993.

“We believe that there’s evidence showing the state was put on notice prior to that date, and so that’s when it should start,” he said. “Even if we’re using this Greene and Bishop methodology and the 10 days applies, we would extend the period from 1988 to 1993 and put a good amount of the money back on the table.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT