APPELLANTS PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR ARVINMERITOR, INC., ET AL.
Chuck W. Adams Brian L. McDermott
Bunker Hill, Indiana Christopher C. Murray
Ebony A. Reid
Charles E. Howard Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C.
Morgantown, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF INDIANA, ET AL.
MICHAEL KINCADE, ANTONIO Gregory F. Zoeller
COLLIER, AND DAVID MARZINI Attorney General of Indiana
Robert S. Rifkin
Clinton E. Blanck Frances Barrow
Maurer Rifkin, P.C. Deputy Attorney General
Carmel, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR CORIZON, INC., ET AL.
Jeb A. Crandall
Bleeke Dillon Crandall
Rachel A. East
Indianapolis, Indiana
_____________________________________________________________________________
FILED
In the
Oct 12 2016, 12:29 pm
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
_________________________________
No. 49S02-1610-PL-532
CHUCK W. ADAMS, CHARLES E. HOWARD,
ET AL.,
Appellants (Plaintiffs below),
v.
ARVINMERITOR, INC., ET AL.,
Appellees (Defendants below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D14-1206-PL-025688
The Honorable James B. Osborn, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1406-PL-00465
__________________________________
October 12, 2016
Per Curiam.
While Chuck Adams and Charles Howard were inmates at the Indiana Department of
Correction (“DOC”) Correctional Industrial Facility (“CIF”), they worked at a privately-owned
brake shop operated by Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems, LLC on the premises of CIF. Indiana
Code chapter 11-10-7 permits the DOC commissioner to enter agreements with private
enterprises to establish “facilities within the exterior boundary of any state adult correctional
facility, for the manufacturing and processing of goods or any other business, commercial, or
agricultural enterprise.” Ind. Code § 11-10-7-2.
Adams and Howard filed a complaint alleging among other things that they are owed
unpaid wages because they were not paid the “prevailing wage” for their work. Indiana Code
section 11-10-7-3 provides that “an offender employed by a private person under this chapter
will be paid at least the prevailing wage for that type of work . . . including applicable wage
increases for overtime work.” Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems and all its related companies,
officers, and employees named as defendants (collectively “Meritor defendants”), and the State
defendants1 filed motions to dismiss the wage claims, arguing in part that Indiana Code chapter
11-10-7 does not create a private right of action. The trial court granted the motions and
dismissed the claims.
A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Adams and Howard have a
private right of action under section 11-10-7-4, which provides that an enterprise operating under
1
The named Meritor defendants are ArvinMeritor, Inc.; Meritor, Inc.; Meritor Heavy Equipment
Systems, LLC; Joseph L. Mejaly; Catherine Auckland; Vernon Baker; ArvinMeritor; ArvinMeritor Brake
Shop/Meritor Brake Shop; Dwight Treen; Jon Fowler; and Matt Durham. The named State defendants
relevant to the wage claims are Edwin G. Buss; Bruce Lemmon; the DOC; PEN Products; Mike Herron;
Doug Evans; Becky Deeb; Dawn Morgan; Mark Spratt; Gregory F. Zoeller; Christopher A. Ruhl; Mark
E. Everson; and the State of Indiana. (Appellant's App. at 47.)
2
chapter 11-10-7 “is a private enterprise subject to laws governing the operation of similar
enterprises in Indiana.” Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 48 N.E.3d 1, 8-9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015),
aff’d on reh’g by, 53 N.E.3d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The majority noted that private
enterprises are subject to the Wage Payment Statute, which allows an employee to file an action
in court to collect unpaid wages. See I.C. § 22-2-5-2. And the majority concluded Adams and
Howard may pursue their wage claims. Adams, 48 N.E.3d at 9.2 Judge May dissented on this
issue, concluding the trial court properly dismissed the wage claims because Indiana Code
section 11-10-7-4 did not explicitly create a private right of action for offenders to pursue wage
claims. Id. at 16, and 53 N.E.3d at 1184 (May, J., dissenting in part). The Meritor defendants
seek transfer.
We agree with Judge May. We grant transfer, adopt and incorporate by reference the
dissent’s original and rehearing opinions addressing the wage claims, see Ind. Appellate Rule
58(A)(1), and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of these claims. We summarily affirm those parts
of the Court of Appeals opinions addressing Adams’s other claims. See App. R. 58(A)(2).
All Justices concur.
2
Effective May 9, 2013, the Legislature amended the relevant statutes to exempt criminal offenders in a
DOC facility from the Wage Payment and Wage Claim Statutes. (See P.L. No. 223-2013, secs. 4, 5, and
6.) As the majority noted, this Legislative action has “foreclose[d] any similar claims in the future.”
Adams, 53 N.E.3d at 1183.
3