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.
“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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
(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."
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.
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."