ILNews

School bus drivers can’t sue school corporation for collusion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The lawsuit for collusion brought by 13 North Gibson School Corporation bus drivers against the school corporation as a result of bids for a transportation services contract failed on interlocutory appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Bus Corp. was awarded two contracts with the school corporation, which would cover bus transportation from 2011 to 2015.  The school corporation then scheduled “negotiation sessions” with individual drivers who wanted to renew or acquire a contract for their respective routes. Thirteen of the drivers sued the school corporation based on how the negotiation sessions were carried out – using a “reverse auction” process. The drivers were presented with a contract at a reduced price resulting from the “reverse auction” and told by the school corporation’s representative that if the contracts at the stated daily rates weren’t executed by a certain date, the school corporation would award the contract to the next lowest bidder – Bus Corp.

The drivers alleged collusion in their suit and sought compensatory damages under the Indiana Antitrust Act. The school corporation tried to have the suit dismissed, but the trial judge denied the motion.

On interlocutory appeal, the COA reversed. The drivers, as unsuccessful bidders, don’t have a private right of action against the school corporation, even if they allege collusion, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb. The school corporation also can’t be held liable for damages under the Indiana Antitrust Act. The appellate court cited Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 824 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2005), reading that decision to mean that governmental entities can’t be liable for actions prohibited by the Indiana Antitrust Act. That Act provides a cause of action for unsuccessful bidders against other bidders.

Robb pointed out that a suit against Bus Corp. may have been a better strategy. The drivers have no remedy against the school corporation.

The judges ordered the trial court to enter an order consistent with the appellate opinion.

 

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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT