Hollis v. Defender Security Co.
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 58
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hollis filed a wage-claim complaint on behalf of himself and others alleging Defender violated Indiana wage laws.
- Wage disputes may be brought under either the Wage Payment Statute (current employees or those who voluntarily leave) or the Wage Claims Statute (claims after separation).
- Robert was involuntarily separated from Defender on April 21, 2009; Keisha voluntarily separated later that year.
- The trial court dismissed Robert's claims as falling under the Wage Claims Statute, and thus not properly filed with the DOL.
- Steele clarifies wage disputes involve different categories of claimants; status at time of claim determines applicable statute; McCausland footnote discussed dual statutory theories but Steele controls the analysis.
- The court held that Robert’s status at filing (involuntarily separated) placed his claims under the Wage Claims Statute; thus dismissal was proper for not filing with the DOL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper under Wage Claims Statute | Hollis argues Steele controls; status classes govern. | Defender argues claims must go through DOL for Wage Claims Statute. | Yes; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steele v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind.2002) (interprets wage disputes and applicability of statutes by wage claimant category)
- McCausland v. Walter USA, Inc., 918 N.E.2d 420 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (discusses dual statutes; noted by panel regarding applicability)
- Gavin v. Calcars AB, Inc. & Astra Fin., Inc., 938 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (held claimant’s status at filing determines statute applied)
- Lemon v. Wishard Health Servs., 902 N.E.2d 297 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (statutory channels barrier to court claims via DOL/AG)
- Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 714 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (de novo review of Trial Rule 12(B)(1) where facts undisputed)