Ron Shoemaker v. Indiana State Police Department
62 N.E.3d 1242
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Ronald Shoemaker, a long‑time Indiana State Police (ISP) officer, reported misconduct in the CID in 2008 and was later promoted under Superintendent Whitesell.
- After Superintendent Carter replaced Whitesell in 2013, Carter demoted Shoemaker from spot major to his last permanent merit rank of sergeant, reducing pay.
- Shoemaker filed a SEAC administrative appeal in January 2014 alleging WBL (Whistleblower Law) retaliation; the ALJ dismissed it in July 2014 as untimely and rejected equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment.
- Shoemaker did not seek judicial review of the SEAC final order; instead he filed a separate breach of contract lawsuit in state court alleging violation of the WBL.
- ISP moved for summary judgment arguing Shoemaker failed to exhaust administrative remedies and could not bring a breach of contract action under the WBL; trial court granted summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a WBL claimant may bypass the SEAC administrative process and sue in court on a breach‑of‑contract theory | Shoemaker: Whinery allows statutory terms to be treated as part of the employment contract, permitting a direct contract suit | ISP: WBL provides an exclusive administrative remedy (SEAC) for whistleblower discipline; exhaustion is required | Held: No. WBL’s remedial scheme is exclusive for whistleblower claims; plaintiff must exhaust SEAC and cannot bring separate breach‑of‑contract claim |
| Whether Shoemaker was excused from exhaustion due to futility/inadequacy | Shoemaker: SEAC would be futile or unavailable for ISP employees | ISP: SEAC process applied to WBL claims by any state employee; Shoemaker even used SEAC steps I–III | Held: Futility claim rejected; WBL explicitly entitles any state employee to appeal via SEAC, so exhaustion required |
| Whether ISP is judicially estopped from asserting SEAC jurisdiction after arguing otherwise below | Shoemaker: ISP previously argued SEAC was improper and should be estopped from changing position | ISP: Made alternative arguments to SEAC (jurisdiction vs. timeliness); ALJ ruled on timeliness | Held: Judicial estoppel not applied; ISP’s alternative positions and ALJ’s timeliness ruling defeat estoppel claim |
| Whether equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment saved the untimely SEAC appeal | Shoemaker: SEAC filing period should be tolled for equitable/fraudulent concealment reasons | ISP: Timeliness defense; ALJ found no basis for tolling | Held: ALJ’s dismissal for untimeliness stands; plaintiff failed to seek judicial review and cannot pursue separate breach claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory administrative remedy under the WBL must be exhausted; common‑law bypass rejected)
- Whinery v. Roberson, 819 N.E.2d 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory provisions affecting employment may be treated as part of employment contract)
- Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker, 726 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. 2000) (exhaustion requirement should not be lightly dispensed with on grounds of futility)
- Coutee v. Lafayette Neighborhood Hous. Servs., Inc., 792 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (whistleblower protections are statutory, not common law)
- Foley v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 421 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (terms of statutes affecting employment may be incorporated into the employment contract)