Suzanne E. Esserman v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management
84 N.E.3d 1185
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Suzanne Esserman, a 25-year employee of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, oversaw disbursements from an excess-liability trust fund and reported alleged improper payments.
- After Esserman objected to the disbursements, the Department terminated her employment; she sued under Indiana’s False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act (Ind. Code § 5‑11‑5.5‑8) alleging retaliatory discharge.
- The Department moved to dismiss under Trial Rules 12(B)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity) and 12(B)(6) (failure to state a claim); the trial court granted dismissal on both grounds.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, but this Court granted transfer and reviewed dismissal under 12(B)(6), accepting Esserman’s factual allegations as true and asking whether the statutory claim could support relief.
- The majority held Indiana retains common-law sovereign immunity for non‑tort statutory claims and that a statute waiving that immunity must "clearly evince" the legislature’s intent; the whistleblower provision does not clearly waive immunity as to the State.
- The Court affirmed dismissal (without prejudice to amend) and noted state employees have an alternative remedy under the State Personnel Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State waived sovereign immunity for non‑tort statutory whistleblower claims | Esserman: § 5‑11‑5.5‑8 permits an employee to sue her "employer," which plainly includes the State | IDEM: The State is protected by sovereign immunity and the whistleblower statute does not clearly waive that immunity | Held: State sovereign immunity remains for non‑tort statutory claims unless legislature "clearly evinces" waiver; § 8 does not do so |
| Standard for finding legislative waiver of sovereign immunity | Esserman: plain statutory language "employer" suffices; no special definition required | State: waiver must be unequivocal and expressly include the State | Held: Pulaski standard controls: waiver must be clearly and unequivocally expressed by statute |
| Proper procedural basis for dismissal (jurisdiction vs. failure to state a claim) | Esserman: dismissal improper because claim valid on its face | State: dismissal proper based on sovereign immunity (jurisdictional) or failure to state a claim | Held: Court affirms dismissal on 12(B)(6) alternative ground (failure to state a claim) but leaves jurisdictional question for another day |
| Availability of alternative remedies for state employees | Esserman: seeks remedies under False Claims Act | State: State Personnel Act provides exclusive remedy for retaliatory discipline of state employees | Held: State Personnel Act provides a separate, limited remedy for state employees; legislature may add remedies but must clearly waive immunity to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clarke, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 436 (early federal recognition that government is not suable without consent)
- Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (early Eleventh Amendment history prompting state immunity)
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (States immune from suits by own citizens in federal court)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (States’ sovereign immunity is fundamental aspect of sovereignty)
- Pulaski Circuit Court (State ex rel. Indiana Dept. of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court), 231 Ind. 245, 108 N.E.2d 185 (statutory waiver of state immunity must "clearly evince" consent)
- Campbell v. State, 259 Ind. 55, 284 N.E.2d 733 (judicial abrogation of common‑law immunity for tort claims)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (waiver of federal sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (unequivocal expression required to subject States to suit)
- Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (stringent test for waiver of state immunity in federal court)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (waiver of sovereign immunity not lightly inferred)
- College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (requirement that waiver be clearly expressed)