ILNews

SCOTUS denies 4 Indiana cases, issues order in pending appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear four cases from Indiana, and it has asked the federal government to weigh in on a pending appeal about alleged workplace harassment involving Ball State University.

In Maetta Vance v. Ball State University, et al, 11-556, which arises out of the Southern District of Indiana, the justices issued a CVSG, which stands for a Call for the Views of the Solicitor General and is something the court does when it’s considering whether to grant a certiorari petition and wants to know what the federal government’s views might be on the issue.

In this case, the issue raised is: Whether the “supervisor” liability rule established in two 1998 court rulings applies to harassment of those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work. On the flip side, the case asks whether the precedent is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, transfer or discipline" their victim.

The 7th Circuit in June 2011 ruled against Maetta Vance, who worked at Ball State and claimed her co-workers’ racially charged statements and unfavorable treatment from her superiors created a hostile work environment. The appellate panel upheld a summary judgment ruling against the woman from U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker in the Southern District of Indiana.

The justices also denied certiorari requests for the workplace discrimination case Tonya M. Buamann v. The Finish Line, 11-297; and probate case Lori Rappaport LaCroix v. the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 11-3239. The justices also denied two state court cases: Kristin S. Hill v. Michael W. Hill, 11-7868, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals in November 2010 affirmed a Marion Superior probate ruling that named the father as guardian over the divorced couple’s son; and Randy Edward Johnson v. Indiana, 11-7938, in which the Indiana Supreme Court held in June 2011 that a Monroe Circuit judge’s failure to investigate a complaint about inadequate public defender service didn’t violate the Sixth Amendment.

 

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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT