52 N.E.3d 11
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Skillman was hired by Ivy Tech as a senior operations analyst in 2008 with an Administrative Exempt, E-1 classification that excluded overtime pay.
- He received a set salary plus benefits, paid vacation and sick time, and a company cell phone; he was on call after hours, averaging eleven after-hours calls per week.
- He never claimed overtime while employed; after leaving in 2013 he calculated $108,000 in overtime owed and sued in state court.
- Ivy Tech moved for and the trial court granted summary judgment on Skillman’s state-law claims, dismissing FLSA claims earlier.
- The sole remaining question is whether Ivy Tech falls under the Indiana Minimum Wage Law (MWL) overtime provisions via the Wage Payment Act (WPA).
- Indiana Code Section 22-2-2-4(k) imposes overtime requirements on non-exempt employees, but MWL defines “employer” and excludes entities subject to FLSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ivy Tech is subject to MWL overtime requirements | Skillman argues MWL applies since State may be subject to WPA/WPA, despite FLSA. | Ivy Tech is excluded from MWL as it is subject to FLSA and thus not an MWL employer. | IVY TECH not an MWL employer; subject to FLSA; WPA claim failing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abner v. Dept. of Health of State of Indiana, 777 N.E.2d 778 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (FLSA governs state but MWL excludes subject employers; dicta but persuasive)
- Montgomery v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University, 849 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2006) (State employees subject to ADEA; states immune from private ADEA suits; influence on MWL interpretation)
- City of Clinton v. Goldner, 885 N.E.2d 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (MWL governs wage frequency and amount; employer definition; liquidated damages)
- Orem v. Ivy Tech State College, 711 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (State college as political subdivision; relevance to employer status)