Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Delaware County Circuit Court
668 N.E.2d 1219
Ind.
1996
Check Treatment

*1 COMMISSION, INDIANA CIVIL RIGHTS

Alpha Blackburn as Chairman Salais, Appellant,

Debra

DELAWARE COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Indiana. Jacquelyn Thompson, Indiana

Commission,Indianapolis, Appellant. Graham, Clark, Jennifer L. Melissa A. Barker, Price & Indianapolis, for Appellee. ON PETITION TO TRANSFER SULLIVAN, Justice.

This cause of action arises from the dis- charge of Debra Salais from her as a supervisor at the Delaware Juvenile Detention Center. We hold that the defen- dant operates Delaware Circuit center, the detention failed to review of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission's determination that Sa- improperly discharged. lais was Background Salais was first hired super- as May visor at the detention center in of 1980. She moved to full time status March of supervisor, responsi- 1982. As a supervising ble for detainees at the detention center. *2 grant 1980s, objections, which was which to file the early in the Sometime commission, deadline to by the so that the known as ed a mental condition

diagnosed with (also August objections was extended to known as "manic-de- file their Disorder Bipolar (one August three 19871 On generally pressive"). Bipolar Disorder due, objections swings. day) Salais's doc- business mood characterized to treat certain medications prescribed tors another motion to extend the filed objections. condition, the Sa- arriving proper at the which to file time within her but objections August on time dosage proved difficult. lais filed for 24. 20, 1988, in was involved Salais On October inappropriate behavior toward of an incident ap- the commission denied On incident, Shortly after the Salais a detainee. pellee's second motion probation disrespectful toward the chief was decision, respect to this the com- time. With respect also admitted officer. She mission stated: detainee, "had she to the altercation by Respondent's question posed 12. The it." lost Enlarge to Time was Second Motion meeting, apprised the At a later Salais good cause whether said Motion had shown Af- probation officer of her condition. chief enlargement of time. The for a second being given the choice to take medical ter asserted in said Motion for an reason discharged, of or to be Salais leave absence enlargement of time was that the tran- months of absence. After a few took a leave ready. seript would not be leave, doctor decided Salais was of Salais's initially requested a for- Respondents the ready return to work. The of to ty-five day of at least extension responsible for Juvenile Court was purpose of part regards making final decision with to the request filing transcript. This was judge ultimately The decided Salais. waited, Respondents for granted. whatev- discharged. was to be Salais reason, the er order being discharged, response Salais Then, knowing July 31. that com- about complaint with the Muncie Human filed a pletion would take about Commission, which transferred thirty days, they until one busi- complaint to the state commission. On June request the deadline to ness case, 29, 1987, reviewing the facts of the enlargement. another was the commission decided that Salais party seeking enlargement A wrongfully discharged on basis of her stating in the re- time has the burden The commission also mental condition. quest facts to demonstrate sufficient detention center was not a found that are more time is needed for reasons it of the proper party because responsibility. requesting party's court, and the but both Salais Enlarge Respondents' Motion To Second proper parties. Finally, the com- court were not meet this burden and was Time did mission determined properly Explanations the sub- denied. sequent Motion to Reconsider and at oral acting seope of judge was within the argument were too late. authority judge's when the terminated Salais, protected under and therefore was Despite

the doctrine extension, objections appellee filed its anyway days past initially days from the parties had ten objections Ap- were due. of the commission's decision to file their the date date However, pellee also filed a motion to to the decision. both again the commission it. sought an of time within parties denied promulgate agencies rules Teachers Assoc. state administrative 1. See Charles A. Beard Classroom filing objec- allowing for extensions of time Trustees, v. Board School (Ind.1996), resolving opinions a conflict in the tions in certain cases. authority over the then filed a for review of second extension of time Superior the commission's decision the Marion capricious, and an discre- t.2 The trial court reversed the tion. 642 N.E.2d at 545. Cour commission's determination that discrimina *3 occurred, stating tion had it was arbi standard of review of an ad trary, capricious, agency and an ministrative abuse of discretion decision is narrow. appellee had Board Trustees County introduced substan Knox v. Sulli van, 558, (7th Cir.1992), 965 F.2d 564 cert. demonstrating tial evidence denied, 1078, 1043, 506 U.S. 113 S.Ct. 122 perform supervisor. unable to a duties as (1993). did, however, agree agency The trial court L.Ed.2d 353 An may with the decision appellate be reversed an only court where judge commission that the court litigation to the because purely it is or an error of law has been made. Indiana State Bd. Public judge protected by judicial immuni-t y3 Center, Tioga Inc., v. Living Pines Welfare 622 N.E.2d 935, (Ind.1993), denied, 939 cert. Appeals The Court of affirmed trial 1195, 510 114 U.S. S.Ct. 127 L.Ed.2d Rights court. Commission 654 § See also Ind.Code 4-21.5-5- Court, County Circuit 642 N.E.2d 14(d) (1998). An action of an administrative fact, (Ind.Ct.App.1994). 541 In agency arbitrary capricious and only where Appeals specifically held that the commis- there is no reasonable basis for the action. appellee's sion's denial of second motion for Sugar Natural Resources Comm'n v. Creek an extension of time and motion to reconsid- Estates, (Ind.Ct. Mobile 646 N.E.2d arbitrary, capricious, er was and an App.1995), trans. denied. discretion. Id. at 545. We conclude that the commission's Discussion granting denial of a second extension was (1998) § Indiana Code 4-21.5-8-29 reasonable. The commission based deci provides objection that an to an order of an deny appellee sion to its second motion for an timely administrative law must be factors, extension of time on several includ objection judicial review. ing: already had obtained a § similarly pro Ind.Code 4-21.5-5-4 seeking extension before its second person object vides that a who fails time; appellee initially extension of to an order waives the re pur the extension of time for requested recently view. We have held that failure to pose transcript, a but then did timely assignment file a deprives of errors 31; not transcript July order the any subsequent jurisdiction court any (&i) appellee, knowing appeal Claywell would have to be dismissed. thirty days, would nearly take at least Board, (Ind.1994). v. Review 643 N.E.2d 330 (three twenty days days, day, or one business the law is clear: failure to file deadline) to file its second motion timely objections leads to waiver of that issue addition, for an extension of time. appeal. commission further although reasoned that Here, objections appellee eventually were due on explained, in its motion to Appellee filed its reconsider the denial of the second motion to twenty days they time, delayed due. The an extension of that it Appeals Court of overlooked this ordering failure to ap because certain comply because, proval required it, deadline that court ordering this concluded, information was offered too late. ruling denying law, party appealing Under more recent challenged, was not may appeal directly decision of the Commission party appeal. is not a to the Indiana Appeals. § to the Court of See Ind.Code 22-9-8- Commission v. Delaware Cir (1995 Supp.). (Ind.Ct.App. cuit 541 n. 1 1994). agree, We and therefore find no need to opinion, 3. As the Court of noted in its address the issue of complaint against the decision to dismiss Salais's job. regret I why it to hold on to her any explanation as to desire

did not offer opt- has the Indiana Civil transeript in it its second waited to order opposite make the choice. only ed to first an motion for in its motion to recon- explanation offered joins. By sider, September 15. filed on explanation in its finally this offered the deadline motion long had

already due date once extended argument was two

passed, and oral cireumstances, can-

away. these Under arbitrarily acted say that the commission *4 motion for an denying appellee's second of time. A. BEARD CLASSROOM CHARLES toward adminis- light of our deference ASSOCIATION, TEACHERS our conclusion trative decisions and Employment Rela- Indiana Education reasonable, here was commission's decision Board, Appellants, tions erred we hold that the Court reversing the commission's appellee's second motion OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF BOARD this, appellee failed to file time. Because BEARD THE CHARLES A. MEMORI- objections, the relevant its and under CORPORATION, Appellee. AL SCHOOL above, waived its law as discussed There- the commission's decision. review of fore, findings and conclu- Supreme of Indiana. Court sions stand.

Conclusion transfer, vacate judgment opinion of the Court of () 11(B)@8);

Appeals, Ind.Appellate Rule court, and the decision of the trial

reverse

(iv) Findings of affirm the October

Fact, Law, and Order of the Conclusions of Rights Commission. JJ., SELBY, concur.

DeBRULER and

SHEPARD, C.J., concurs result opinion in

separate

concurs. Justice,

SHEPARD, concurring in Chief

result.

Had the Delaware Circuit Court's timely, I would have voted to

for review been

uphold the merits. Even after disorder, bi-polar

regular for her physically young assaulted

Debra Salais apparent led to an

detainee that her actions this dan- attempt. Confronted with

suicide the court's

ger to Hoosier children under Caldemeyer correctly

protection, Judge safety place their ahead of Salais'

chose