ILNews

Justices consider state back-pay suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Almost a year after the Indiana Court of Appeals significantly slashed a $42.4 million damages award against the state, the Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments Sept. 8 on whether past and present employees can recover back pay and how much should be awarded.

Justices heard arguments in the case of Richmond State Hospital, et al. v. Paula Brattain, et. al., No. 49A02-0908-CV-718. This appeal by the Indiana attorney general’s office follows a July 2009 decision by Marion Superior Judge John Hanley, which awarded $42,422,788 million to 15,000 or more past and present state workers who’d fought to recover back pay for unequal wages earned during those two decades. The trial judge found that by requiring plaintiffs and others to work 40 hours a week in “split classes” during those years, the state violated the “equal pay for comparable work” regulation and breached its employment contracts.

But in October 2010, the Court of Appeals cut the period from which employees can recover back pay from 20 years to about two months. The judges held that certain employees shouldn’t be able to recover for that two-decade period but instead only for a time limited to 10 days before the class-action lawsuit was filed July 29, 1993, to when the state courts abolished the split-class system in September 1993.

In total, the judge’s analysis of the four classes translated to: $20,979,490 for overtime-eligible merit employees, $2,696,812 for overtime-exempt merit employees, $16,762,773 million for overtime-eligible non-merit employees, and $1,983,713 for overtime-exempt non-merit workers.

The justices granted transfer earlier this year, and during arguments asked questions delving into the various classes of employees and whether Indiana Code Section 4-15-2-35 and former 31 Indiana Administrative Code 2-13-1 apply only to merit employees. Questions also focused on the application and interpretation of previous caselaw – State Employees’ Appeals Commission v. Bishop, 741 N.E. 2d 1229 (Ind. 2001), (Bishop II), which was a consolidation of Indiana State Employees’ Appeals Commission v. Greene, 716 N.E. 2d 54, 57-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), and Indiana State Employees’ Appeals Commission v. Bishop (Bishop I), 721 N.E. 2d 881, 884-85 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). In those cases, the Court of Appeals found employees were entitled to back pay for only a limited period starting 10 days before the respective complaints were filed.

Attorneys discussed why they believe or do not think that evidence shows the state was put on notice in 1988 rather than before the filing in 1993, and when the liability period begins using the methodology from precedent.•
 

Rehearing "Appeals court pares back-pay award" IL Oct. 13-26, 2010

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT