ILNews

Judge awards $42 million in back pay suit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior judge is awarding more than $42.4 million to a class of thousands of former state employees who sued to recover back pay for unequal wages earned between 1973 and 1993.

Issuing a 27-page ruling today in Paula Brattain, et al. v. Richmond State Hospital, et. al., No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309, Marion Superior Judge John Hanley found in favor of four subclasses of plaintiffs who'd sued about 15 years ago and nearly reached a settlement last year.

Their award: $42,422,788.

The class in this suit entails as many as 15,000 former state employees. They wanted compensation for hours they worked but didn't get the same pay as fellow workers - the plaintiffs worked 40 hours a week and were paid the same as those who worked only 37 1/2 hours a week. The case almost reached a settlement last summer for $8.5 million, but that fell through and Judge Hanley held a bench trial in March. Plaintiffs had asked for anywhere between $40 million and $82 million.

Analyzing the four types of "split classes" the plaintiffs fall into depending on where they worked, Judge Hanley awarded $20.9 million to overtime eligible employees within state "merit agencies;" $16.7 million to overtime eligible workers not in merit agencies; $2.7 million to overtime exempt employees in merit agencies; and $1.9 million to overtime exempt employees not at merit agencies.

In his ruling, Judge Hanley noted a recent legislative special session estimate showing Indiana spends approximately $38 million per day every day to operate.

"The Court takes judicial notice of the present economic conditions in this country and the possibility that entry of a judgment in this amount will not be widely appreciated for that reason," the judge wrote. "However, these are political considerations and not legal ones. The parties have had numerous opportunities to resolve this litigation over an extended number of years, in good economic times as well as bad, without the necessity of judicial intervention, and they have failed to do so. This decision today is the necessary result of that failure."

Seeing the ruling today, one of the lead attorneys on the case said he thinks this could be the highest judgment imposed against the state.

"I haven't done the research, but I don't know of any state judgment that's reached this magnitude," said Indianapolis attorney John Kautzman, who worked along with Bill Hasbrook. "This is a tremendous win for the state workers who were discriminated against and have been long overdue to receive this pay. It's been a real journey and test of our patience and determination to keep fighting this for more than two decades. After finally having our day in court, the judge agreed with us."

Kautzman wouldn't comment on the possibility of appeal, but he hopes the state will work to coordinate a payment arrangement for the plaintiffs. He pointed out that "this isn't something that was created by the current administration... we are cognizant of that and don't blame the Daniels administration, but it's now this administration that must rectify the ills of previous administrations."

The Indiana Attorney General's Office is reviewing the ruling and is likely to appeal, according to the agency's public information officer Bryan Corbin.

Look for more on this ruling in the Aug. 5-18, 2009, issue of Indiana Lawyer.

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT