Court rules for Indianapolis Housing Agency in suit brought by ex-employee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Indianapolis Housing Agency, finding the agency had a qualified privilege to report an employee’s suspected criminal conduct while on the job.

Ex-employee Kelvin Brown sued IHA for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress after he was fired from work and charged with ghost employment, official misconduct and deception.

The IHA suspected based on witness accounts and the GPS system installed in his employer-provided car that Brown was dealing with matters involving rental properties he owned during work hours. Brown was a Section 8 housing inspector for IHA; his homes were not Section 8 properties.

During work hours, Brown appeared in small claims court for a case related to one of his properties and did not properly request time off to attend court. The GPS also showed his car located at one of his properties during work when there was no reason for it to be. The cars were only used during work hours.

The prosecutor eventually dropped the charges due to evidentiary issues.

The Court of Appeals judges agreed with the lower court that the IHA had a qualified privilege to make a criminal complaint against Brown. This privilege has been applied to claims of defamation, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The judges extended the privilege to malicious prosecution.

They found the designated evidence in the case didn’t raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the privilege was abused. The evidence didn’t establish that IHA’s conduct rose to the level of extreme or outrageous, the judges ruled.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit