ILNews

Indiana legislator sues over walk-out pay deductions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis lawmaker is suing the state for deducting some of his pay to cover fines imposed against him because of a legislative walkout earlier this year.

Fort Wayne attorney Mark GiaQuinta filed a suit June 16 in Marion Superior Court on behalf of Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, who took part in the five-week walkout that shut down the House in February and March because of a right-to-work bill.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, used a House rule to assess fines against the 39 lawmakers who had left the state during the walk-out, deducting the fines from their legislative pay.

In Crawford’s case, the fines total more than $3,000 and also affect his retirement pay. The suit challenges how the fines were imposed but not the fines themselves.

Specifically, the suit says Indiana Code 22-2-8-1 prohibits employers from taking fines out of paychecks and it’s considered a Class C infraction to do so. In addition to that, the suit says it’s official misconduct for an elected office-holder to violate the law and that amounts to a Class D felony.

State Auditor Tim Berry, the State of Indiana, and Bosma are named as defendants in the suit, which is the only legal challenge to the fines to date. Crawford also filed a civil tort claim in the Indiana Attorney General’s Office last week, making similar allegations.

Spokesman Bryan Corbin in the AG’s office declined to comment on the suit or tort claim, but referred to previous statements Attorney General Greg Zoeller had made in April when saying that no formal advisory opinion would be issued on the matter.

“Assessing fines against House members is an issue exclusively for the legislative branch of state government to decide,” he said. “Under the constitutional separation of powers, neither the judicial branch nor the executive branch has the authority to prevent the House from imposing sanctions. Since the Indiana House is on strong legal ground in imposing fines and in doing so through payroll deduction, the Office of the Attorney General as state government's lawyer will defend the authority of the legislative branch to determine its own rules for House members.”
 

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

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. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT