ILNews

Judges reduce award of damages to fired school employee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a fired bus driver and custodian for Peru Community Schools is entitled to damages for wrongful termination, but not the $175,000 a jury awarded him.

Gary Grant was a school bus driver with a yearly contract and an at-will custodian for the school corporation. He would drive the bus during the day and work as the custodian after his afternoon route ended. He was fired from both positions during the 2007-08 school year after nearly 24 years of employment. Grant sued for wrongful termination and a jury awarded him nearly $175,000 in damages. Peru Community Schools appealed the denial of its motions for summary judgment and judgment on the evidence, as well as the admission of evidence regarding Grant’s salary as a school bus driver and custodian until he turns 65.

The trial court denied the schools’ motion for judgment on the evidence regarding Grant’s employment as an at-will custodian, which was an error, the appellate court held. There is no substantial evidence that Grant relied on these letters to his detriment, which is required to defeat the presumption of at-will employment, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik in Peru School Corp. a/k/a Peru Comm. Schools v. Gary Grant v. Peru School Corp. a/k/a Peru Comm. Schools and Stanley Hall, No. 52A04-1107-PL-352. Grant argued that for years, he received letters from the school corporation thanking him for his services “as a bus driver” and providing “reasonable assurance” that he would be employed for the upcoming school year. He argued that his employment in both jobs were linked from the beginning and believed these letters guaranteed him a job as a bus driver and custodian in the upcoming school year.

But regarding his employment as a contracted school bus driver, the COA found there to be a genuine issue of material fact as to why Grant was fired as he denied one of the two grounds for termination. In addition, cause is required to fire an employee with a contract with a definite term, and the facts were heavily disputed as to whether cause existed, so the trial court properly allowed this issue to go before the jury to resolve.

The appellate judges reduced the amount of damages Grant will receive to $2,422.82, which is the remainder of his salary as a school bus driver for the 2007-08 school year, minus the $1,800 in unemployment he received. Because the trial court should have granted judgment on the evidence for the school system regarding Grant’s termination of employment as an at-will custodian, he’s only entitled to damages regarding his firing from his school bus driver position.

 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT