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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT