ILNews

Officers say wrong textbook hurt promotions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three current Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers have filed a suit against the city because they received the wrong textbooks to study for a promotion examination.

In the suit Lincoln Plowman, Tim Motsinger and Rebecca Lake v. City of Indianapolis, filed in Marion Superior Court Tuesday, the officers say as a result of receiving the wrong textbook to prepare for the test, they had lower test scores and their low ranking on the promotional list keeps them from being promoted.

At the time the test was taken in 2006, all three were members of the Marion County Sheriff's Department, which merged with the Indianapolis Police Department to form the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department in 2008. The officers were told they were given the wrong book following the test, but the sheriff's department said their scores and rankings would remain unchanged. The officers believe they are the only three to receive the incorrect textbook.

They are suing for a declaratory judgment that the test was administered improperly and the results should be null, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. The officers would also like specific performance and substantial damages and any other proper relief. They claim as a result of the lower ranking, they are prevented from peer recognition of a promotion, earning more money from a higher income, and their retirement income will be lower because their pensions will be based on the average of their salaries over the past few years since taking the test.

Lincoln Plowman is current a city-county councilman in Indianapolis and serves as assistant commander for the Investigations Division in IMPD. Tim Motsinger is a lieutenant in the department and announced his candidacy for Marion County Sheriff in 2010; Rebecca Lake is a major in the department.

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. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT