The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued a national insurance company, contending the firm violated federal law by refusing to hire a North Carolina man after he disclosed he was participating in a methadone treatment program for a drug addiction.

The suit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Raleigh against United Insurance Co. of America, said EEOC attorney Lynette Barnes.

The complaint argues the firm violated federal disability discrimination law by refusing to hire Craig Burns, 30, who applied for a job in the firm's Raleigh office in December of 2009. The firm made a conditional offer of employment to Burns the following month, depending upon his passing a drug test, the complaint said.

The test showed the presence of methadone in his system, so Burns submitted a letter to the firm from his treatment provider saying he was participating in a supervised methadone treatment program and taking legally prescribed medication as part of the treatment, the complaint said.

Upon receiving this information, United Insurance notified Barnes he was not eligible to be hired and withdrew the employment offer, the complaint said.

Barnes said the action violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities. A recovering drug addict is covered under the act, the attorney said in an interview.

On July 19, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision which I found surprising in McCann v. City of Anderson, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 48A02-1009-PL-1060. At issue was whether a trial court had properly granted summary judgment on the question of whether a warrant officer was an employee of the Anderson City Court. Despite the procedural posture of the case and factors that weighed in favor of finding an employer-employee relationship, the Court affirmed a decision granting summary judgment to the defendants.

In this case, McCann was a police officer, who eventually became warrant officer for the Anderson City Court in 1998. He held that post until 2005, when the judge asked that McCann be reassigned. As a result of this dismissal, McCann filed suit based on the Indiana Wage Statute, arguing that he had been an employee of the Court and was entitled to funds that had been allocated to the position of warrant officer by that court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted the defendants' motion.

On appeal, the Court quoted GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 402 (Ind. 2001), for the seven factors that a court should consider when determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. The Court then analyzed each of these factors and determined that three weighed in favor of the existence an employer-employee relationship and four against, with the "most important" factor weighing against.

Thus, over all, four of the seven factors, including the most important, "Control over the Means Used," indicate McCann was not an employee of the City Court. Because the City Court was not McCann's employer, he cannot be due any "unpaid wages" from the City Court. Therefore, he cannot assert a claim against the City Court under the Indiana Wage Statute.

The aspect of this decision that is most surprising is that the Court reached this conclusion despite the procedural posture of the case. It could have easily held that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to McCann, the seven factors weighed both for and against a finding of an employer-employee relationship between McCann and the City Court created a genuine issue of material fact. This indicates that the factor the Court identified as being "most important", whether the purported employer exercised control over the means used by the purported employee to perform work, is very important indeed.

Lesson:

1.It will be exceedingly difficult to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship if the purported employer did not exercise control over the means that the purported employee used to perform his work.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC

http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/When-is-a-Person-an-Employee-of-Another

On June 8, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals demonstrated it is serious about enforcing the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Garrard v. Teibel, Cause No. 45A04-1003-PL-229, a memorandum decision, uncitable as authority under App. R. 65(D). In this case, a pro se appellant failed to include any statement of the case after 2007 (although summary judgment proceedings occurred in 2009) and failed to include any of the designated evidence from the summary judgment proceedings in his appendix. The Court found that the pro se appellant had waived all arguments on appeal and affirmed the trial court's order.

Lessons:

1.Although the Court cuts people a lot of slack in the form and content of their brief, its generosity has bounds.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC

Two women pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges of child endangerment a week after an 8-year-old was found dead in their apartment from severe malnutrition and an untreated broken leg and her injured and emaciated siblings were removed alive.

The children's 30-year-old mother, Venette Ovilde, stared blankly and answered a judge's questions in a barely audible whisper as she entered her plea through a court-appointed attorney. She remains held on $500,000 bail on aggravated manslaughter and child endangerment charges.

Her 23-year-old roommate, Myriam Janvier, also pleaded not guilty through a court-appointed attorney to child endangerment charges. Her bail was continued at $100,000.

Christiana Glenn died May 22 from severe malnutrition and a fractured femur that authorities said had never been treated. Her 7-year-old sister and 6-year-old brother remained hospitalized for treatment of malnutrition and other injuries after being removed from Ovilde's Irvington apartment.

The children were discovered after the police were called to the home on a report of a child not breathing.

The women, who were both born in Haiti but came to the U.S. at a young age, radically altered their lifestyles about two years ago when they came under the sway of a man they described as their religious leader, according to friends and acquaintances.

New Hampshire's Senate has voted unanimously to reject changes to the state's anti-bullying law, such as limiting school responsibility in dealing with off-campus incidents.

Senators said Wednesday that the current law is only months old and needs further study before any changes are made.

The current law was amended last year for the electronic age. It defines bullying and cyberbullying and allows schools to step in if the conduct happens outside of school and interferes with a student's education or substantially disrupts school operations.

Many states have been moving in this direction, but some New Hampshire lawmakers wanted to restrict the boundaries to school grounds.

The House passed a bill in March that would remove that provision and make other changes. The Senate's rejection leaves the measure's future in doubt.

Today, Brad gave a presentation at the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association's 23rd Annual Lifetime Achievement Seminar, entitled "Working in the Cloud: Using Online Resources to Help Your Practice." We have links to downloadable copies of Brad's PowerPoint presentation (To view as a PowerPoint, right click on the hyperlink and select "Save Target as...."

To access the hyperlinks contained within the PowerPoint, right click on each logo button as select "Open hyperlink"), which contains links to websites mentioned in the presentation, and handout.  Brad has also prepared bundles of blogs he follows, including legal blogs and technology blogs aimed at lawyers.

http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Welcome-to-all-Indiana-Trial-Lawyers-Association-Members