« Indiana Decisions Two from 7th Circuit Today | Main | Indiana Courts - Judge receives private discipline »

Monday, August 09, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Three from Court of Appeals, one from Tax Court today

Indiana Department of Environmental Management v. Lynn West, et al. (8/9/04 IndCtApp) [Employment Law; Age Discrimination; Administrative Law]
Sharpnack, Judge

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”) appeals the trial court’s denial of its petition for judicial review of the Indiana State Employees’ Appeals Commission’s (“SEAC”) final order finding that IDEM had discriminated against Lynn West, Michael Dalton, and Phillip Wuensch (collectively, “Employees”) on the basis of their age. IDEM raises six issues, which we restate as: Whether Employees’ claims against IDEM are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity; Whether SEAC lacked jurisdiction to hear Employees’ claims under Ind. Code § 4-15-2-35 because Employees were laterally transferred under Ind. Code § 4-15-2-24; Whether SEAC violated the Open Door Law when it issued its final order; Whether the Chief Hearing Officer erred by admitting Employees’ Exhibit M into evidence and whether SEAC erred by relying upon Employees’ Exhibit M in issuing its final order; Whether SEAC’s factual findings are supported by the evidence; and Whether SEAC acted properly in fashioning an appropriate remedy. We affirm. * * *

Before the merger, Robert Moran, an IDEM employee over the age of forty, spoke with Assistant Commissioner, Mary Beth Tuohy, who had encouraged senior supervisors to take technical positions and to facilitate a reorganization. Privately, Tuohy told Moran that he should consider taking a “SEM 1” position, which would have been a demotion, because it would set a good example for all the other supervisors. She hinted that if Moran did not voluntarily take the position she could use the “performance appraisal system” to accomplish the demotion. She said she wanted “new blood with fresh ideas.” West had also heard that Tuohy had said that the “office could use some new blood and some – or some younger blood or some new blood and some new ideas.” Before the merger, IDEM promoted several employees, all of whom were under the age of forty. After the merger, they remained in their promoted positions.

Employees filed merit complaints with the State Personnel Department, alleging that IDEM had created unacceptable working conditions when it reclassified their jobs. Employees, who are all over forty years of age, also complained that as a result of the merger, staff members over forty had been demoted while staff members under forty had been promoted. * * *

Conclusion. In summary, we hold that: (1) Employees’ claims against IDEM are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity; (2) SEAC did have jurisdiction to hear Employees’ complaint pursuant to I.C. § 4-15-2-35; (3) SEAC substantially complied with the Open Door Law when it issued its final order; (4) Hearing Officer Riggs did not err by admitting Employees’ Exhibit M into evidence, and SEAC did not err by relying upon Employees’ Exhibit M; (5) SEAC’s conclusion that Employees were discriminated on the basis of the age is supported by substantial evidence; and (6) SEAC acted properly in fashioning an appropriate remedy.
For the foregoing reason, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed.
DARDEN, J. and ROBB, J. concur

Lake County Parks & Recreation Board v. Indiana-American Water Company (8/9/04 IndCtApp) [Utilities; Condemnation]
Mathias, Judge
Indiana-American Water Company (“Indiana-American”) filed a complaint in condemnation in Lake Superior Court, in which it sought to condemn a right-of-way and easement on the property of the Lake County Parks and Recreation Board (“the Board”). The Board filed objections to the complaint, which the trial court overruled. The Board appeals raising the following issues, which we restate as: Whether Indiana-American has the authority to condemn the Board’s property; Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded an appraisal of the property offered by the Board; and, Whether the trial court erred when it found that the Board failed to establish that Indiana-American’s selection of the route for the water main was arbitrary or capricious.

Concluding that the trial court properly overruled the Board’s objections to the condemnation proceeding, we affirm. * * *

The public use doctrine is not applicable in this case because Indiana-American’s proposed use for the property is not inconsistent with the Board’s current use. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the Board’s appraisal from evidence. Finally, the Board failed to establish that Indiana-American’s selection of the route of the water main was arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it condemned the easement and right-of-way. Affirmed.
BARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

Indiana State Board of Education v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, et al. (6/15/04 IndCtApp - May originally have been NFP) [Procedure]
Mathias, Judge
The Indiana State Board of Education (“ISBE”) appeals an order of the Hendricks Superior Court on judicial review of its agency action. The trial court set aside an ISBE order to the Brownsburg Community School Corporation (“School Corporation”) to enroll a student attending a nonpublic, nonaccredited school as a part-time student at Brownsburg High School. ISBE raises the following restated issues: Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition for judicial review; and Whether the trial court erred in setting aside the ISBE order in light of Indiana Code section 20-8.1-3-17.3.

Concluding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse. * * *

Because the School Corporation failed to timely file the agency record as required by Indiana Code section 4-21.5-5.13, the trial court lost jurisdiction to consider the School Board’s petition for judicial review. Therefore, we must reverse the trial court’s decision setting aside the ISBE order. Reversed.
BARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

Steaks R US v. Mount Pleasant Township Assessor (8/6/04 IndTaxCt - NFP) [Real property valuation]

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 9, 2004 01:55 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions