Hollis v. Defender Sec. Co.

19 Citing cases

  1. Treat v. Tom Kelley Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc.

    646 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 22 times
    Discussing Hollis v. Defender Security Co., 941 N.E.2d 536, 539-40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (concluding that the employee's status at the time the claim is filed determines the operative statute)

    The court declined to follow the language in the McCausland footnote and concluded that the plaintiffs claim was barred as a matter of law because he did not file his complaint with the state commissioner of labor as required by the Claims Statute. see id. at 1271-72. The Court of Appeals applied the same reasoning in Hollis v. Defender Security Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind.App. 2011), in which Hollis had been fired and then sued his employer for violating the Payment Statute by failing to pay agreed wages in a timely fashion. 941 N.E.2d at 537.

  2. Bragg ex rel. Situated v. Kittle's Home Furnishings, Inc.

    52 N.E.3d 908 (Ind. App. 2016)   Cited 10 times

    “Our review of a trial court's ruling on an Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss where the facts before the trial court are undisputed, as here, is de novo.” Hollis v. Def. Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536, 537 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citing Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 714, 717–18 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied ), trans.

  3. Walczak v. Labor Works-Fort Wayne, LLC

    966 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Id. at 720.Similarly, in Hollis v. Defender Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind.Ct.App.2011), trans. denied, a former employee brought an action against his former employer on behalf of himself and others alleging that his former employer had violated the Wage Payment Statute by failing to pay agreed wages in a timely fashion. The employer filed a motion to dismiss the claim on grounds that the employee had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

  4. Baker v. DWD Trucking, LLC

    1:23-cv-00664-JMS-KMB (S.D. Ind. Apr. 17, 2024)

    It is now well settled under Indiana law that the statutes are mutually exclusive and dependent on the plaintiff's employment status at the time the claim is filed. Steele, 766 N.E.2d at 705; Treat, 646 F.3d at 489-92; see also Bishop v. Drees Premier Homes, Inc., 2017 WL 4155216, at *4-5 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 19, 2017); Hollis v. Defender Security Co., 941 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011), trans. denied, 950 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. 2011); Gavin v. Calcars AB, Inc., 938 N.E.2d 1270, 1271 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010), trans. denied, 950 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. 2011)

  5. Perry v. Bath & Body Works, LLC

    993 F. Supp. 2d 883 (N.D. Ind. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    The Indiana Court of Appeals determined that an employee's status at the time the wage claim is filed, and not at the time the claim accrues, determines whether the employee proceeds under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute or the Indiana Wage Claim Statute. See Hollis v. Defender Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). Although the Indiana Supreme Court has not addressed this issue, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals followed the reasoning in Hollis, predicting that the Indiana Supreme Court would agree.

  6. Criswell v. Solaray Corp.

    NO. 1:11-cv-01612-MJD-JMS (S.D. Ind. Aug. 17, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    In Hollis v. Defender Sec. Co., the court clarified the holding in Steele, concluding that the correct statute to sue under turns on the employee's status at the time he or she files a claim—not when the claim accrues. 941 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), transfer denied, 950 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. 2011). In other words, once an employee has been terminated or separated from work due to an industrial dispute, that employee may only sue under the Wage Claims Statute regardless of whether, prior to termination, the employee had cognizable Wage Payment Statute claims.

  7. Vazquez v. Navistar Int'l Transp.

    CAUSE NO. 2:09-CV-434 JD (N.D. Ind. Mar. 30, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Furthermore, "an employee's status at the time he or she files the claim is the relevant inquiry in determining whether to proceed under the Wage Payment Statute or the Wage Claims Statute." Hollis v. Defender Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (emphasis added). Vazquez had been terminated by Navistar at the time he filed this lawsuit.

  8. Family Dental Care, P.C. v. Mousa

    180 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    (emphasis supplied). [11] There are two ways to arrive at application of the Wage Payment Statute, and the appropriate method is determined by the claimant's status at the time of filing his or her claim. SeeHollis v. Def. Sec. Co. , 941 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that an employee's status at the time the claim is filed is the relevant inquiry in determining which statutory procedural framework applies), trans. denied. The WPA, I.C. Chap. 22-2-5, applies to wage claims asserted by "current employees [or] those who have voluntarily left employment, either permanently or temporarily."

  9. Alexander v. Linkmeyer Dev. II, LLC

    119 N.E.3d 603 (Ind. App. 2019)   Cited 18 times
    Noting that boilerplate contractual language, despite contrary arguments, "still carries legal effect"

    Id. Later, in Hollis v. Defender Sec. Co. , 941 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied , a panel of this court held "that an employee's status at the time he or she files the claim is the relevant inquiry in determining whether to proceed under the Wage Payment Statute or the Wage Claims Statute." [50] A key distinction between the Wage Payment Statute and the Wage Claims Statute is that the Wage Claims Statute requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies before the filing of a complaint with a trial court, Hollis, 941 N.E.2d at 538, while the Wage Payment Statute does not, Walczak v. Labor Works-Ft.

  10. Quimby v. Becovic Management Group, Inc.

    946 N.E.2d 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 12 times
    Affirming judgment in favor of employer where employee, who voluntarily left her employment, had already recovered for her lost wages through the department of labor even though she could have brought her claim in court under the Payment Statute

    We decline to hold an employee, regardless of whether or why she is no longer employed by an employer, may bring a claim before the DOL, assign it to the DOL, and then bring the same claim in court if the employee is dissatisfied with the result obtained by the DOL. Another panel of this court recently provided an enlightening discussion of the interplay between the Wage Claim statute and the Wage Payment statute in Hollis v. Defender Security Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011). The Hollis panel determined "an employee's status at the time he or she files the claim [and not the time the claim accrues] is the relevant inquiry in determining whether to proceed under the Wage Payment Statute or the Wage Claims Statute."