Kelvin T. Brown v. Indianapolis Housing Agency
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 346
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Brown was employed by IHA as a Section 8 housing inspector, with duties in the field under HUD standards.
- IHA installed GPS in inspector cars in 2002 and prohibited taking cars home or using them for personal business.
- Brown owned rental properties separate from IHA; IHA began investigating suspected personal use during work hours in 2004.
- Events included Brown’s June 7, 2004 appearance in small claims court, a late leave request, and conflicting leave/timecard records, with GPS data and logs scrutinized by IHA.
- Brown was suspended for five days in September 2004 and terminated after an October 25, 2004 court appearance amid disciplinary findings.
- In 2005 Brown was charged with ghost employment, official misconduct, and deception; charges were later dismissed; Brown sued IHA for malicious prosecution and IIED, leading to IHA’s summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privilege to report suspected crime | Brown argues privilege does not shield IHA's report. | IHA contends qualified privilege covers reporting to law enforcement. | Privilege applies; reporting not abusive. |
| Abuse of privilege for malicious prosecution | Brown asserts malice shown by bias and withheld evidence. | IHA argues no malice; evidence supports proper investigation. | No genuine malice proven; privilege not abused. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Brown claims IHA’s reporting caused severe distress. | IHA argues conduct not extreme/outrageous. | No extreme and outrageous conduct shown; judgment affirmed on IIED. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (qualified privilege applies to communications to report criminal activity; burden on defendant to prove abuse)
- Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. 2007) (communications to law enforcement strike balance to public safety)
- City of New Haven v. Reichhart, 748 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. 2001) (elements and malice standards for malicious prosecution)
- Kroger Food Stores, Inc. v. Clark, 598 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (malice inferred from lack of probable cause or improper inquiry)
- Holcomb v. Walter’s Dimmick Petroleum, Inc., 858 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. 2006) (abuse of privileged occasion requires improper scope or spurious motives)