Lindal Hairston v. City of Gary Police Civil Service Commission (mem. dec.)
45A03-1704-MI-808
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 23, 2017Background
- On December 22, 2010 Gary PD Sergeant Lindal Hairston stopped and arrested Russell Thomas; Thomas filed an Internal Affairs complaint on January 7, 2011 alleging police harassment.
- The City filed a Verified Complaint with the Gary Police Civil Service Commission on April 12, 2011, but withdrew that Complaint on August 30, 2011 without notifying Thomas.
- Due to turnover in the department Thomas’s IA matter became stalled; Thomas later filed his own Verified Complaint with the Commission on September 22, 2014.
- A Hearing Officer found Thomas’s complaint timely and recommended a 14-day suspension; the Commission instead voted to terminate Hairston and later sustained termination on appeal to the Commission itself.
- Hairston sued in Lake Superior Court and moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion and affirmed the Commission’s termination decision.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the Commission’s determination that Thomas’s complaint was timely and that the Commission’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas’s complaint was timely under Commission Rule 7(A) (120-day discovery rule and 2-year occurrence bar) | Hairston: Thomas’s 2014 Commission complaint violated the 120‑day/time‑bar and therefore proceedings were barred | Commission/City/Thomas: Thomas filed IA complaint within 120 days; City had filed with the Commission in 2011; withdrawals and delays were not Thomas’s fault; equitable tolling/continuing diligence made his 2014 filing timely | Court: Substantial evidence supported finding Thomas acted within the 120‑day rule (through earlier IA/City filings and diligence); Commission’s timeliness determination affirmed; termination not arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Hairston’s summary judgment seeking reversal of the Commission | Hairston: Trial court should have found Commission decision arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law and granted summary judgment | City/Commission: Administrative decisions receive deference; review limited to procedure and substantial evidence; challenger bears burden to show arbitrariness | Court: Applied de novo summary‑judgment standard but deferred to administrative findings; Hairston failed to show the Commission acted arbitrarily; denial of summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 973 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review on summary judgment in appellate court)
- Wilcox Mfg. Grp., Inc. v. Mktg. Servs. of Ind., Inc., 832 N.E.2d 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (summary judgment principles)
- Cox v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 848 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (de novo review and summary judgment framing)
- Troxel Equip. Co. v. Limberlost Bancshares, 833 N.E.2d 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (viewing designated evidence for summary judgment)
- Winters v. City of Evansville, 29 N.E.3d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (deference to administrative/police merit commission decisions; arbitrary and capricious standard)
- City of Indianapolis v. Woods, 703 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (scope of judicial review over administrative actions)
- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Holland, 993 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (briefing/argument preservation in appellate practice)