ILNews

Judge: Names in workforce development cases should remain confidential

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There appears to be discord among the judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals as to whether party names should be confidential in workforce development cases.

Chief Judge Margret Robb and Judges Edward Najam and Terry Crone released an unemployment benefits decision Thursday using only initials to identify the parties: company S.S. and employee D.H. In the opinion – in which the judges affirmed the finding of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that D.H. was not terminated for just cause and is eligible for unemployment benefits – authoring Judge Najam and Chief Judge Robb noted they agreed with the recent opinion by another panel that names of parties should be used in workforce development cases.

But in S.S. LLC v. Review Board and D.H., No. 93A02-1101-EX-56, Judge Crone wrote a 7-page concurring opinion in which he agreed with the outcome of D.H.’s case, but felt that initials should be used instead of party names in review board case captions and opinions. This is contrary to the unanimous opinion issued Aug. 12 in LaDon A. Moore v. Review Board and Whitington Homes and Services, No. 93A02-1005-EX-529, in which authoring Judge John Baker and Judges James Kirsch and Elaine Brown held statute and administrative rules did not require the court to use initials in these types of cases.

The Moore judges noted that the initials-only practice began Jan. 1, 2010 – even though Indiana Code 22-4-19-6 has remained much the same since 1947 – when the issue was brought up that amendments to Administrative Rule 9(G) required using initials. In Moore, the review board had filed a motion asking the court to publish the names of the parties, individuals, and employment units in that case and all future cases.

Judge Crone found the position of the Moore court to be contrary to law and even pointed out that the Indiana Supreme Court adopted Administrative Rule 9(G)(1)(b)(xviii) using initials at the request of a former chief judge of the COA, making a reference to Judge Baker without using his name by saying that the chief judge also authored Moore.

Crone disagreed with the analysis in the Moore decision, believing that the rule amendment does apply to the Court of Appeals, that the COA’s opinions are easily searchable online regardless of whether full names are used, and opinions are not the same thing as an order for purposes of I.C. 22-4-19-6(b).

“More generally, I am dubious about the propriety of a single panel of this Court issuing a ruling on a motion in a single case that will affect the privacy rights of unemployment litigants in future cases,” Judge Crone wrote. “I have no position on the propriety of or the wisdom behind the rule as written, but I believe that we must follow it until such time as it is repealed by our supreme court. I would encourage our supreme court to visit this issue by court opinion or rule change to give proper guidance in and finality to this matter.”

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT