July 2, 2014

Indiana Labor Law - Do the Employee’s Online Actions Fall Within the Scope of the Act?

It is often difficult to discern whether the employee’s conduct online—whether it be posting pictures, writing comments about the work environment or the employer, will constitute protected concerted activity. This determination will determine what actions, if any, an employer may take against an employee when s/he as posted online content, and more broadly, the cases which follow can allow an employer to craft legally permissible policies and handbooks.

No protected concerted activity:

For example, in Karl Knauz Motors, Inc., 358 NLRB 164 (2012), a BMW automobile dealership (the Respondent) discharged a sales representative for photos and comments that he posted to his Facebook page. The first post was about a sales event for a new model and included sarcastic comments about the quality of the food (hot dogs, chips, and bottled water) being served at a marketing event for a luxury automobile.

The second incident involved an accident at an adjacent dealership in which a customer’s 13-year old child was sitting in a vehicle’s driver’s seat when the vehicle accelerated over the customer’s foot and into a pond while the child was inside. The employee posted photos and comments mocking the incident on his Facebook page. A competitor told the Respondent about the posts and the employee was discharged. The Board determined that these comments and photos which led to his termination did not amount to protected and concerted activity under the Act.

Additionally, in Tasker Healthcare Group, d/b/a Skinsmart Dermatology, the employer discharged an employee for her Facebook posts regarding work. After discussing nonwork issues with a private group of 10 current and former coworkers, the employee turned to the conversation to work and wrote: “They [the employer] are full of s**t…They seem to be staying away from me, you know I don’t bite my [tongue] anymore, F***…FIRE ME…Make my day…”

The employer found about this posting the following day. It terminated her, stating that it was “obvious” she was no longer interested in working there and the employer was concerned about having the employee work with customers given her feelings about her job. The Board held that the employee did not engage in protected concerted activity and, therefore, the employer did not violate the Act when it terminated her employment. Although the postings referenced her work situation, her comments amounted to nothing more than individual griping rather than any shared concerns about working conditions.

Continue reading "Indiana Labor Law - Do the Employee’s Online Actions Fall Within the Scope of the Act?" »

June 27, 2014

Indiana Business Law - CBR Event Decorators, Inc. v. Gates

On March 3, 2014 the Indiana Court of Appeals clarified that shareholders cannot be held personally liable for attorney fees in a wrongful stop payment of a check under Indiana Code section 26–2–7–5 unless the corporate veil can be pierced. CBR Event Decorators, Inc. v. Gates, 4 N.E.3d 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). In CBR I, the court held that the corporate veil could not be pierced in this case, but created some confusion in dicta about whether the shareholders were still liable for attorney fees. 962 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). The court clarified in CBR II that the shareholders are not personally liable absent successful piercing of the veil, or in cases where the shareholders have otherwise been found personally liable for the wrongful stop payment.

Jeremy Fetty is a partner in the law firm of Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson with offices in Lebanon and Indianapolis. He often advises businesses and utilities (for profit, non-profit and cooperative) on organizational, human resources, and transactional matters and drafts and reviews commercial contracts.

The statements contained herein are matters of opinion and general information only and are not to be considered legal advice and should not be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact an attorney.


June 21, 2014

Indiana Utility Law—Failure to Supply Accurate Location of Underground Facilities Bars Negligence Suit

In January, 2014 the Indiana Court of Appeals found that failure to supply an accurate map of underground facilities may bar negligence suits against contractors who properly file an intent to excavate with the Indiana Underground Plant Protection Service in compliance with the Indiana Damage to Underground Facilities Act (DUFA). City of Fort Wayne v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company, 2 N.E.3d 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). If the contractor files the intent to excavate and obtains defective "locates" from the operator of the underground facility, then the contractor has a defense to damages claims under Indiana Code § 8-1-26-22(c).

Continue reading "Indiana Utility Law—Failure to Supply Accurate Location of Underground Facilities Bars Negligence Suit" »

June 18, 2014

Indiana Utility Law: Changes to the Indiana Code for Temporary Discounts and Private Generation Projects in HEA 1423

HEA 1423 was signed into law on March 27, 2014 and it makes two important changes.

1) The new law expands the temporary discount program for companies hiring in Indiana by:

  • reducing the threshold for utility discount applications from a maximum demand of at least ten megawatts to five megawatts
  • opening the discount to prospective employers, who may be considering locating a new facility in Indiana. (Previously, the discount was available only to existing employers expanding operations.)

Continue reading "Indiana Utility Law: Changes to the Indiana Code for Temporary Discounts and Private Generation Projects in HEA 1423" »

March 11, 2014

Notices to Obtain Tax Deed Found Sufficient

In a March 2014 decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals found an individual complied with Indiana’s statutory notice requirements to properly obtain a tax deed by sending notices by certified mail1, even though signature upon delivery was not requested, return receipt was not requested, and there was no evidence that delivery of the notice was tracked or verified. Gupta v. Busan, No. 87A01-1307-MI-340, 2014 WL 880697, at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. March 6, 2014). The Court also determined that the notice provided had been reasonably calculated to inform the property owner of the tax sale and petition for tax deed. Id.

Continue reading "Notices to Obtain Tax Deed Found Sufficient" »

January 14, 2014

WHO SAYS FARMERS DON’T NEED WORKER’S COMP INSURANCE?

Despite efforts to provide a safer work place on the farm, history has shown that agricultural activities are still among the most dangerous in terms of job-related injuries. Indiana law requires most employers to provide worker’s compensation insurance coverage for the benefit of employees. That insurance pays for necessary medical care, lost wages, and permanent impairment from injuries arising out of the employment. It also pays the employer’s costs of investigating and defending the worker’s comp claim, which itself can be expensive.

Disputes often arise as to the nature and extent of an employee’s claimed injury, its cause and whether it actually arose out of the employment. Those issues can be thorny, but this article focuses on whether farm or agricultural employers should have worker’s comp coverage.

Continue reading "WHO SAYS FARMERS DON’T NEED WORKER’S COMP INSURANCE?" »

November 19, 2013

In re: Carroll County 2012 Tax Sale (Indiana Utility Law)

An Indiana appellate court has recently upheld the judgment of a trial court, holding that a sewer lien could not be enforced by selling a property at a tax sale when that lien was the only lien that existed on the property.

In In re: Carroll County 2012 Tax Sale, 993 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), a regional sewer district (“SD”) serviced an area within which the property owners (“Owners”) possessed property. When the Owners did not pay their sewer bills on time, SD perfected a lien against the property and certified those liens to the county auditor and treasurer for collection with the property tax bill. The auditor and treasurer then applied for a judgment and order of sale for the property in the trial court due to satisfy unpaid property taxes and special assessments (the sewer bills). Soon after, the Owners paid the outstanding property taxes, leaving the only lien on the property to be the sewer lien.

Continue reading "In re: Carroll County 2012 Tax Sale (Indiana Utility Law)" »

June 17, 2013

Indiana Utility Law - Municipal Eminent Domain and Condemnation of a Utilities Company: Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, 985 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. 2013)

The Indiana Supreme Court recently reversed the judgment of a trial court which had granted a city’s motion to strike the jury trial request of a utility companies and the city’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings in a case where the utility company challenged the compensation amount awarded for condemnation of its property by a city’s board of public works under an eminent domain statute.

In Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, 985 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. 2013), the City of Fort Wayne (“the City”) through its Board of Public Works (“the Board”) passed a resolution appropriating and condemning a fraction of water and sewer facilities owned by Aqua Indiana, Utility Center, Inc. (“Utility Center”) that served approximately 12,000 customers. In 2003, the Board assessed damages of $17,202,499.50, but then adjusted them to $14,759,500.00 in 2004. Utility Center then challenged the condemnation by alleging that the City failed to follow proper eminent domain or condemnation statutes.

Continue reading "Indiana Utility Law - Municipal Eminent Domain and Condemnation of a Utilities Company: Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, 985 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. 2013)" »

June 12, 2013

Indiana Contract Law: Carmeuse Lime & Stone v. Illini State Trucking, Inc., 986 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)

An Indiana appellate court recently affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss a limestone manufacturer’s complaint seeking indemnity from a trucking company after a complaint by the trucking company subcontractor’s employee was brought against it.

In Carmeuse Lime & Stone v. Illini State Trucking, Inc., 986 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), an employee of a subcontractor of Illini State Trucking (“Illini”) was injured on Carmeuse Lime & Stone’s (“Carmeuse”) premises after he drove a truck into a ditch to avoid equipment on the opposite side of the road. When he got out of the truck his legs got burnt from lime and other chemicals. He then filed a complaint against Carmeuse alleging premises liability. In response to the employee’s complaint, Carmeuse filed a third party complaint against Illini alleging that at the time of the accident there was a valid contract between Illini and Carmeuse that indemnified Carmeuse from any potential employee injuries resulting from their own negligent acts.

Continue reading "Indiana Contract Law: Carmeuse Lime & Stone v. Illini State Trucking, Inc., 986 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)" »

June 6, 2013

Indiana Municipal Law: Town of Cedar Lake v. Alessia, 985 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a trial courts grant of summary judgment for the Parks and Recreation Board Members who alleged that the Town of Cedar Lake had improperly removed their positions by dissolving the Parks and Recreation Department.

In Town of Cedar Lake v. Alessia, 985 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), the Town of Cedar Lake (the “Town”) dissolved the Parks and Recreation Department (the “Parks Department”) and eliminated the Board Members positions by voting in new members under Ordinance 1129 (the “Ordinance”). Under Indiana’s Home Rule Act, an Ordinance is valid unless it is prohibited by the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution. Generally, a unit has broad powers of local government, unless it is explicitly denied that power, or it has been exclusively granted to another entity.

Continue reading "Indiana Municipal Law: Town of Cedar Lake v. Alessia, 985 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)" »

May 24, 2013

Indiana Utility Law and Indiana Water Utility Law: Bridges v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, 978 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)

An Indiana appellate court recently affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for damages, attorney’s fees and an injunction for lack of jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

In Bridges v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, 978 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), Veolia turned off Bridges’ water for nonpayment. Bridges then attempted to file a class action lawsuit for breach of contract, seeking a return of her $25 reconnection fee, other unspecified damages, attorney’s fees, and an injunction. Veolia is an independent contractor that managed and operated water treatment and distribution facilities owned by the Department of Waterworks. It moved to dismiss Bridges’ complaint and argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter because she failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”). The trial court agreed with Veolia and dismissed the complaint for those reasons. Bridges then appealed.

Continue reading "Indiana Utility Law and Indiana Water Utility Law: Bridges v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, 978 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)" »

May 20, 2013

Indemnification Clause Indiana Law: L.H. Controls, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor, Inc., 974 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)

An Indiana appellate court reversed the judgment of a trial court which had ruled in favor of a conveyor contractor. While it was an electrical subcontractor that initially brought an action against a conveyor contractor, the contractor filed multiple cross-claims against the subcontractor which resulted in trial court granting the contractor more than a $1.4 million judgment for lost profits and attorney’s fees.

In L.H. Controls, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor, Inc., 974 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), Honda contracted with Custom Conveyor, Incorporated (“CCI”) to install conveyor systems for a new factory Honda constructed. Subsequently, CCI subcontracted some of the project to L.H. Controls, Inc. (“LH”), including computer programming and electrical control boxes for some conveyor lines. Soon after, problems and delays arose, which lead to LH falling behind its schedule in completion. This caused Honda to withhold progress payments to CCI. While it took three months longer to install the conveyor system, this did not cause a delay in the ultimate opening of the Honda factory.

Continue reading "Indemnification Clause Indiana Law: L.H. Controls, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor, Inc., 974 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)" »