Roman Marblene Co., Inc. v. Reginald Baker
93A02-1701-EX-91
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Baker, an African‑American employee at Roman Marblene since 1999, was placed on involuntary unpaid medical leave and ultimately barred from returning after a 2010 hand injury and interactions with owner James Triantos.
- Baker repeatedly produced physicians’ statements (including ones stating “no restrictions”) and attempted to return to work; Triantos refused and eventually expelled him from the premises.
- Baker filed an EEOC/ICRC charge alleging race discrimination; the ICRC found probable cause, case was remanded to an ALJ, and a two‑day evidentiary hearing occurred.
- The ALJ issued a proposed order in March 2016 finding Baker failed to prove discrimination; Baker objected and the ICRC heard oral argument.
- In December 2016 the ICRC reversed the ALJ, issued a final order finding race discrimination, awarded $96,228.40 in lost wages, and ordered Roman Marblene to cease discriminatory terminations.
- Roman Marblene appealed, arguing (1) the ICRC improperly reweighed evidence / lacked authority to reverse the ALJ, (2) the ICRC’s reversal violated due process, and (3) the ICRC’s final order was void for being issued after the 60‑day statutory period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (Roman Marblene) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ICRC had authority to reverse the ALJ’s proposed findings | ICRC may review and adopt findings that support relief | ALJ is the trier of fact; ICRC may not reweigh evidence or overturn credibility findings based on paper review | ICRC has statutory authority to affirm, modify, or dissolve an ALJ’s order and may weigh evidence as the ultimate factfinder; reversal was permitted |
| Whether reversal violated due process because ICRC could not assess witness demeanor | Baker relied on record and ICRC review to evaluate credibility and evidence | Reversal based solely on paper review denies due process where demeanor is the determinative factor | No due process violation here: demeanor credibility was not the sole determinative factor and the record provided alternative bases for the ICRC’s decision |
| Whether the ICRC’s final order was supported by substantial evidence / arbitrary or capricious | ICRC’s findings supported by eyewitness testimony and medical releases | ALJ’s proposed order is supported by other record evidence; agency improperly reweighed evidence | Court defers to agency expertise; Roman Marblene failed to show the ICRC’s order was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence |
| Whether issuance after the 60‑day statutory period voids the ICRC’s final order | Timeliness requirement is directory, not jurisdictional; order remains valid | Late final order invalidates action under statute | The 60‑day rule is directory; late issuance does not void the order and Roman Marblene waived timely‑filing objection by not raising it before the agency |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden shifting in disparate treatment claims)
- Cardinal Ritter High Sch., Inc. v. Bullock, 17 N.E.3d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for administrative decisions)
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Vanderburgh Cty.-City of Evansville Human Relations Comm’n, 875 N.E.2d 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (courts may not reweigh evidence; review limited to substantial‑evidence inquiry)
- Russell v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Emp’t & Training Servs., 586 N.E.2d 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (administrative boards may make credibility findings without live testimony)
- St. Mary’s Med. Ctr. of Evansville, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 493 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (agency factfinding authority)
- Stanley v. Review Bd. of Department of Employment & Training Services, 528 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (due process concern when board reverses referee based solely on paper review where demeanor is dispositive)
- State v. Langen, 708 N.E.2d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (60‑day AOPA deadline is directory, not jurisdictional)
- Gaff v. Indiana‑Purdue Univ. of Fort Wayne, 51 N.E.3d 1163 (Ind. 2016) (plaintiff retains ultimate burden to prove unlawful discrimination)