Brandy L. Walczak, Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Labor Works - Fort Wayne LLC, d/b/a Labor Works
983 N.E.2d 1146
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Walczak worked as a day laborer for Labor Works, paid daily by check, with no guaranteed assignments.
- She filed a class action under the Wage Payment Act seeking unpaid wages for a day she did not work.
- Labor Works argued Walczak was separated from the payroll and should pursue the Wage Claims Act, implying lack of jurisdiction.
- The trial court granted dismissal/motion for summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- The central issue is whether Walczak was “separate[d] from the pay-roll” for purposes of the Wage Claims Act, affecting jurisdiction and exhaustion requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walczak could pursue the Wage Payment Act claim in court | Walczak was not separated from payroll; she sought future assignments. | Walczak was separated from payroll, invoking Wage Claims Act administratively. | Walczak may bring her claim under the Wage Payment Act. |
| What constitutes being separated from the payroll under the Wage Claims Act | Day laborers with potential future work are not separated. | Any non-workday implies separation and triggers the Wage Claims Act. | Day laborers are not separated if they have an immediate expectation of future employment with the same employer. |
| Which tribunal has jurisdiction to interpret eligibility and exhaustion under the statutes | Court should decide; statutory construction governs jurisdiction. | Administrative agency should determine applicable scheme. | Courts determine jurisdictional questions; Walczak may proceed in court under the Wage Payment Act. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required | Exhaustion not required if not separated; no express exhaustion in statute. | If separated, administrative remedies must be exhausted. | Exhaustion is not required here because Walczak was not separated from payroll. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc., 829 N.E.2d 979 (Ind. 2005) (jurisdictional distinction between Payment and Claims Acts; not dispositive here)
- J Squared, Inc. v. Herndon, 822 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (mixed questions; firing vs. voluntary leaving; administrative review guidance)
- GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 2001) (procedural posture for reviewing trial court jurisdiction on paper record)
- Twin Eagle LLC v. Ind. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 798 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 2003) (jurisdictional questions—agency authority over regulatory matters)
- Hollis v. Defender Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (administrative exhaustion when separation from payroll occurs)