Richmond State Hospital v. Brattain
939 N.E.2d 1125
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- This is a class action where the State challenged a judgment finding a contractual duty to provide equal pay for merit and nonmerit employees under a split class system.
- The trial court awarded back pay totaling about $42.4 million for 40-hour employees versus 37.5-hour counterparts; the court calculated back pay for merit employees over 20 years.
- The appellate court previously held merit back pay was limited to ten days before the filing of the July 29, 1993 complaint until the split class system was abolished, and remanded to determine abolition date and recalculate back pay.
- On rehearing, the court clarified that merit employees may prove, on remand, when each filed an administrative grievance and that back pay could begin ten days before that grievance or the complaint, whichever is earlier.
- The court affirmed the original ruling in all other respects and remanded to determine the exact abolition date of the split class system (Sept. 12 or Sept. 19, 1993).
- Paula Brattain was replaced by Jennie Veregge as the class representative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How should merit employees’ back pay be calculated on remand? | Back pay should begin ten days before each administrative grievance or the complaint, whichever is earlier. | Back pay should be limited to the complaint filing date ten days prior, as previously held. | Back pay begins ten days before the filing date of the complaint or each grievance, whichever is earlier. |
| What is the proper abolition date for the split class system for damages calculation? | Date determined on remand; either September 12 or September 19, 1993. | State bears burden; abolition date fixed by remand court. | Trial court to determine whether abolition occurred on September 12 or September 19, 1993. |
| Should individual merit employees be permitted to introduce evidence of administrative grievances on remand? | Evidence of filings should be allowed to prove damages period per individual grievances. | Damages should be calculated from the complaint date unless grievance evidence shows otherwise. | Individual merit employees may prove filing dates of grievances on remand; burden on Employees to prove timing. |
| Does former 31 Indiana Administrative Code 2-13-1 apply to merit employees and affect damages? | Applies to merit employees even if exhaustion was futile; starts the clock for damages from complaint or grievance. | Applies to filing of administrative complaints, not to nonmerit employees. | Former 31 IAC 2-13-1 applies to merit employees; remand allows proof of grievance timing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Noble Roman's, Inc. v. Ward, 760 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (burden of proof on damages rests with plaintiff)
- Closson Lumber Co. v. Wiseman, 507 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. 1987) (remand may address new questions and introduce new evidence)
- Greene v. Bishop, 716 N.E.2d 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (back pay awarded for pre-complaint period under prior rule)
- Bishop I v. State of Indiana State Employees' Appeals Commission, 721 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (administrative remedies pursued; back pay timeframe tied to complaints)
- State Employees' Appeals Commission v. Bishop (Bishop II), 741 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind. 2001) (consolidated ruling on back pay timeframe for merit employees)