Esserman v. Ind. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt.
Decision Date | 29 December 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 49A02–1605–PL–1129.,49A02–1605–PL–1129. |
Citation | 66 N.E.3d 993 |
Parties | Suzanne E. ESSERMAN, Appellant–Plaintiff, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, Appellee–Defendant. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mary Jane Lapointe, Daniel Lapointe Kent, Lapointe Law Firm, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Andrea E. Rahman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
[1] Suzanne E. Esserman appeals the trial court's dismissal of her complaint against the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM"), in which Esserman alleged that IDEM had unlawfully terminated her employment, in violation of Indiana's False Claims Act, Ind.Code §§ 5–11–5.5–1 to –18 (2016), in retaliation for her reporting alleged misuse of State funds by certain IDEM officers. Esserman raises two issues for our review:
[2] We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
[3] In her complaint against IDEM, Esserman alleged the following facts to be true:
Appellant's App. Vol. II at 8. In light of those facts, Esserman claimed that IDEM had unlawfully terminated her employment in retaliation for reporting the alleged misuse of State funds.
[4] In response, IDEM moved for the trial court to dismiss Esserman's complaint on two grounds. First, IDEM asserted that the State had not waived its right to sovereign immunity from suit for claims of retaliation under the False Claims Act and, as such, Esserman's complaint did not invoke the subject matter of the trial court. Second, IDEM asserted that the facts alleged in Esserman's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court agreed with both of IDEM's arguments and dismissed Esserman's complaint accordingly. This appeal ensued.
[5] The trial court dismissed Esserman's complaint without holding an evidentiary hearing. Where, as here, the trial court's judgment under Trial Rules 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) was based on facts not in dispute, we review the trial court's dismissal of the complaint de novo. Thornton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind.2015) ; Berry v. Crawford, 990 N.E.2d 410, 414 (Ind.2013). Thus, we afford no deference to the trial court's judgment. S.C. v. S.B. (In re M.B.), 51 N.E.3d 230, 233 (Ind.2016). "This Court views motions to dismiss ... with disfavor because such motions undermine the policy of deciding causes of action on their merits." McQueen v. Fayette Cty. Sch. Corp., 711 N.E.2d 62, 65 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied.
[6] We first consider the trial court's judgment that IDEM is entitled to common law sovereign immunity from claims of unlawful retaliation under the False Claims Act. As our supreme court has repeatedly recognized:
More than forty years ago, a series of judicial decisions almost entirely abolished common law immunity for government entities and activities in this state. Campbell v. State, 259 Ind. 55, 63, 284 N.E.2d 733, 737–38 (1972) ( ); Klepinger v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Miami Cnty., 143 Ind.App. 178, 198–202, 239 N.E.2d 160, 172–73 (1968) ( ), trans. denied; Brinkman v. City of Indianapolis, 141 Ind.App. 662, 666–69, 231 N.E.2d 169, 172–73 (1967) ( ), trans. denied. Under Indiana common law, with very limited exception, governmental entities are thus subject to liability under traditional tort theories.1 See Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 227 (Ind.1999) ( ).
F.D. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 1 N.E.3d 131, 135–36 (Ind.2013). As Esserman's complaint against IDEM does not invoke any of "the three limited circumstances in which common law sovereign immunity still exists," id., IDEM is not entitled to common law sovereign immunity.
[7] Nonetheless, IDEM argues that this court recently held that common law sovereign immunity might apply on behalf of the State in some circumstances. In particular, IDEM relies on Skillman v. Ivy Tech Community College, in which this court stated "the general principle" that "[a] state may not be sued in its own courts unless it has waived its sovereign immunity by expressly consenting to such suit through a ‘clear declaration’ of that consent." 52 N.E.3d 11, 16 (Ind.Ct.App.2016) (quoting Oshinski v. N. Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist., 843 N.E.2d 536, 539–40 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) ), trans. denied. But the State's reliance on Skillman and Oshinski is misplaced. Those cases can easily be distinguished because both involved suits against the State under federal law, and sovereign immunity in such cases is a question under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, not a question under Indiana's common law. See U.S. Const. amend. XI. Nothing about Esserman's suit against IDEM in the Marion Superior Court under Indiana Code Section 5–11–5.5–8 implicates the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, we conclude that IDEM is not entitled to common law sovereign immunity and hold that the trial court erred when it dismissed Esserman's complaint under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) for lack of jurisdiction.
[8] We thus turn to the alternative basis for the trial court's dismissal of Esserman's complaint, namely, that she had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Esserman filed her complaint for unlawful retaliatory discharge under Indiana Code Section 5–11–5.5–8(a), which provides:
[9] Indiana Code Section 5–11–5.5–2(b) provides:
[10] In her complaint, Esserman alleged that IDEM terminated her employment in retaliation for her having made "numerous objections" about certain IDEM officials misusing state funds. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 8. As such, Esserman's complaint plainly stated a cause of action under Section 8(a).2
[11] Still, IDEM asserts that Esserman has failed to state a claim for two reasons. First, IDEM argues that she has not stated a claim because other parts of the False Claims Act limit the ability of citizens to bring qui tam actions3 on behalf of the State for the recovery of funds. See I.C. § 5–11–5.5–4. But Esserman has not stated a qui tam action...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Esserman v. Ind. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt.
...was not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. Esserman v. Indiana Dep't. of Envt'l Mgmt., 66 N.E.3d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We granted transfer, thus vacating the Court of Appeals' opinion, and now affirm the trial court and remand wit......