The Indiana Court of Appeals sided with a Michigan City woman who alleged multiple state agencies wrongfully dismissed a complaint after she appealed her termination at the Indiana State Prison.
“This is a major victory for transparency for thousands of state employees who had no warning that this so-called ‘reform’ was coming as it appeared in the late days of the 2011 legislative session without debate or consideration in any committee,” Shaw Friedman, principal of Friedman and Associates, said in a news release. “By allowing this claim to proceed … the court has ensured that the state cannot use procedural technicalities to shield arguably unconstitutional laws from judicial review.”
The law firm called the appellate court’s decision “a significant ruling for state employees,” and it has allowed for a direct constitutional challenge to the 2011 Civil Service Reform Act, according to the news release. Court of Appeals Judges Elizabeth Tavitas, Dana Kenworthy, and Mark Bailey unanimously sided with Callie Burke’s complaints.
The decision allows Burke to proceed with a declaratory judgment action that alleges the Civil Service Reform Act was passed in violation of the Indiana Constitution’s single-subject clause, according to the news release. Burke’s lawsuit alleges the act was “improperly tucked” into a 294-page 2011 budget bill.
“For 15 years, a lack of due process has silenced most of Indiana’s state employees, but this ruling breaks that silence,” Laura Nirenberg, associate attorney at Friedman and Associates, said in a release. “One of the most important findings in this decision is the court’s directive to the State Employee Appeals Commission … that it has a mandatory duty to consider an employee’s challenge to their status as ‘unclassified’ (versus) ‘classified,” a distinction that makes all the difference in whether an employee is protected by due process or left ‘at-will.’ The court has made clear that the state cannot simply ‘opt-out’ of its responsibility to provide a fair process for its workers.”
According to court documents, Burke was terminated from employment at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City on April 10, 2023, because Burke failed to appropriately report and document information received and cell phone use and possession by an inmate.
Burke challenged her termination and sought to be reinstated.
She appealed her termination to the warden, the State Personnel Department, and the State Employees’ Appeals Commission. The commission dismissed Burke’s complaint, and she filed a petition for judicial review but failed to timely file the record.
The LaPorte County Circuit Court dismissed her petition, according to court documents. Burke’s appeal argued that the court made an error “by dismissing her petition for judicial review.”
Her appeal also argued that Burke’s petition presented a claim for declaratory judgment, which the appellate court agreed with. The judges will allow the claim to proceed, arguing that the LaPorte County court made an error by dismissing it.
Although the court ultimately sided with Burke, they agreed the court properly dismissed the petition for judicial review because she failed to timely file the agency record, according to court documents.
“Burke’s facial constitutionality claim, however, was not capable of being resolved by (the State Employee’s Appeals Commission), and thus, we remand for the trial court to consider that declaratory judgment claim,” the opinion said. “Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.”
