Treat v. TOM KELLEY BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC.
646 F.3d 487
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Treats sued Kelley for unpaid wages under Indiana Wage Payment Statute (Payment Statute) after involuntary termination.
- District court granted summary judgment to Kelley, concluding claims fell under the Wage Claims Statute (Claims Statute) and were not properly pursued.
- Treats assert their claims arise under the Payment Statute, which allows private court actions, not requiring Department of Labor procedure.
- Kelley and district court rely on Indiana law distinguishing two wage statutes with separate procedures for wage recovery.
- Indiana Supreme Court decisions in Steele and subsequent Court of Appeals cases guide whether a claim arises under the Payment or the Claims Statute when termination is involuntary.
- This appeal centers on whether the Treats’ post-termination wage disputes fall under the Wage Claims Statute rather than the Wage Payment Statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which Indiana wage statute governs? | Treats under Payment Statute. | Treats under Wage Claims Statute. | Wage Claims Statute governs. |
| Does involuntary termination determine the applicable statute? | Statute choice may be guided by Steele's dicta and mixed claims. | Steele framework supports Claims Statute for fired employees. | Involuntary termination triggers Claims Statute. |
| Are the Treats required to pursue claims via the commissioner of labor under the Claims Statute? | No, they can sue in court under Payment Statute. | Claims Statute procedure applies, via commissioner of labor. | Claims Statute procedure applies; court action under Payment Statute not appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2002) (distinguishes Wage Payment vs. Wage Claims by employee status at separation)
- Gavin v. Calcars AB, Inc., 938 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind.App.2010) (involuntarily terminated former employee must pursue Wage Claims Statute)
- Hollis v. Defender Security Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind.App.2011) (applies Steele guidance to involuntarily terminated employees)
- McCausland v. Walter USA, Inc., 918 N.E.2d 420 (Ind.App.2009) (footnote suggesting dual filing under both statutes in some scenarios)
- Quimby v. Becovic Mgt. Grp., Inc., 946 N.E.2d 30 (Ind.App.2011) (confirms sequencing under Claims Statute for certain wage claims)
- E & L Rental Equipment, Inc. v. Bresland, 782 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind.App.2003) (employee voluntary quitting generally aligns with Payment Statute)
- D. C. v. Harney (Harney) Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 2007 WL 2710824 (S.D.Ind.2007) (discussed as intermediate view; later decisions favor Steele framework)