ILNews

Judge orders refund of legislative fines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Democratic members of the Indiana House who faced fines for failing to attend sessions in protest of right-to-work legislation will be reimbursed any amount withheld in 2011, according to a ruling from Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer. The judge also ordered that any fines imposed this session may not be collected.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, fined the Democratic representatives who left the state during the 2011 legislative session and deducted the money from the legislators’ pay and per diem compensation. Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, filed the lawsuit challenging the legality of the fines being deducted from their pay. Bosma again fined House Democrats who walked out during the current legislative session in protest of right-to-work legislation.

Late last year, Dreyer ruled that the imposition of the fines is beyond the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, but the collection of the fines remained at issue. He decided Monday to order a permanent injunction for defendants – Indiana Auditor Tim Berry, Indiana House Principal Clerk M. Caroline Spotts and the state of Indiana – to return the money withheld from the plaintiffs during the 2011 session and refrain from withholding amounts for the 2012 session without compliance with applicable Indiana wage payment law.

The seizure of the plaintiffs’ pay violates the Indiana Wage Payment statutes and due process.

“The clearly determinative factor in this case is the extreme risk of an erroneous deprivation if no due process is afforded,” wrote Dreyer. “House members may be absent for a variety of reasons, not specifically for the purpose of obstructing legislative action. They should have, at a minimum, a fair opportunity to be heard and present evidence to justify their absence before denial of pay or imposition of any other penalty becomes effective.”

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General plans to appeal the permanent injunction, believing the disagreement over the collection of fines belongs in the legislative branch.

“The interruption that led to the recent legislative fines ended when session resumed and legislators now should work out among themselves whether to collect fines. We disagree with the trial court’s prolonging this internal dispute and the precedent it would establish, and we will respectfully ask a higher court to redirect the dispute promptly and conclusively to the place it belongs: the Legislature,” Attorney General Greg Zoeller said.

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear the state’s separate appeal of Dreyer’s Dec. 6 ruling that declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. 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.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT