ILNews

Indianapolis attorney chosen as new magistrate judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis employment law attorney has been chosen as the newest U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Indiana.

The District judges announced a decision late Monday that they had selected Denise K. LaRue to fill the new magistrate position created last fall by the Judicial Conference of the United States to help with the jurisdiction’s heavy caseload. She was one of 44 people to apply for the post by the November deadline, and one of the five finalists submitted for the judges’ consideration by a merit selection panel in early February.

A 1989 cum laude graduate of Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, LaRue is a name partner at employment firm Haskin & LaRue, where she began as an associate when the firm opened in 1994.

She’d worked as a staff attorney at the Indiana Civil Rights Commission prior to that. In her current position, she’s represented clients in all aspects of employment law matters involving discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She’s also handled claims involving constitutional due process, free speech, and political association violations, as well as federal labor and wage and hour issues.

LaRue is a life member of the Marion County Bar Association, and some of her legal community leadership roles have included her being a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association-Indiana and serving on the Southern District of Indiana’s Local Rules Advisory Committee. She serves on the Board of the Indiana Minority Health Coalition and has served the Indianapolis chapter of Jack and Jill of America, The Links, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority.

“We are very pleased that Denise LaRue, with her strong background in litigating civil matters in federal court, will be joining our court family,” Chief Judge Richard Young said in a news release. “We are certain that she will be a valuable addition to the bench.”

Once a background check is complete for LaRue, her eight-year term would begin April 1 and she would be eligible for reappointment to successive terms after that.

The announcement of LaRue’s appointment came on the heels of the District Court’s investiture ceremony Feb. 25 for Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore, who the judges had selected last fall. He succeeded the Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, who was elevated last year to an Article III judgeship.
 

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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT