Dorothea Bragg, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Kittle's Home Furnishings, Inc.
52 N.E.3d 908
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Bragg worked as a Kittle’s retail sales consultant (Nov 2011–Sept 2013), received a biweekly draw plus potential commissions tied to "delivered sales."
- Bragg filed a putative class action (June 2014) under Indiana's Wage Payment Statute alleging commissions were paid later than the statute's ten‑day limit; she did not allege any unpaid commissions.
- Kittle’s moved to dismiss; trial court dismissed claims for unknown class members who were involuntarily terminated for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and converted the wage‑definition issue as to Bragg to summary judgment.
- Trial court denied Bragg discovery subpoenas/depositions of Indiana DOL personnel and refused to excuse failure to exhaust administrative remedies for involuntarily terminated employees.
- Trial court entered summary judgment for Kittle’s, holding Bragg’s commissions are not "wages" under the Wage Payment Statute; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims of putative class members involuntarily terminated could proceed in court (jurisdiction) | Bragg: class members need not exhaust DOL remedies because action brought under the Wage Payment Statute | Kittle’s: involuntarily terminated employees must proceed under Wage Claims Statute and exhaust DOL remedies first | Held: Wage Claims Statute applies to involuntarily terminated employees; failure to submit to DOL deprives court of jurisdiction, so dismissal was proper |
| Whether failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be excused (futility) | Bragg: exhaustion would be futile because DOL lacks enforcement power and offers no meaningful relief | Kittle’s: DOL can mediate, investigate, and refer claims to Attorney General; exhaustion is required | Held: Futility not established; DOL procedures can provide benefit; failure to exhaust not excused |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying depositions of DOL personnel | Bragg: depositions could produce evidence to support futility argument | Kittle’s: request was speculative fishing expedition; not justified | Held: No abuse of discretion; Bragg failed to identify specific needed information |
| Whether Bragg's commissions are "wages" under the Wage Payment Statute for ten‑day rule | Bragg: commissions are wages and subject to statute's ten‑day requirement | Kittle’s: commissions are contingent/bonus‑like, not tied to time worked and not readily calculable within 10 days | Held: As a matter of law commissions were contingent on delivered sales and other factors, not directly linked to time worked, not regular, and therefore not "wages" under the statute; summary judgment for Kittle’s |
Key Cases Cited
- Treat v. Tom Kelley Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., 646 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Wage Payment and Wage Claims statutes and analyzing contingency factor)
- St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2002) (holding Wage Claims Statute applies to involuntarily separated employees)
- Thomas v. H & R Block E. Enters., Inc., 630 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (commission/bonus analysis under Indiana law; contingencies and calculability within 10 days)
- Hollis v. Def. Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (applying Steele; dismissal for failure to exhaust DOL remedies)
- McCausland v. Walter USA, Inc., 918 N.E.2d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (commissions not wages where based on others’ sales and not calculable within 10 days)
- Gress v. Fabcon, Inc., 826 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (commissions tied to project profitability are not wages under the Wage Payment Statute)
- Lemon v. Wishard Health Servs., 902 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (requires DOL submission before court action under Wage Claims Statute)
- Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (putative class members cannot bypass administrative exhaustion requirement)
- Quezare v. Byrider Fin., Inc., 941 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (bonuses contingent on performance not wages when not regularly paid)