Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schools
| Decision Date | 18 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-0505-CV-472.,49A02-0505-CV-472. |
| Citation | 840 N.E.2d 854 |
| Parties | Tabatha J. NAUGLE and Sandra M. Cain, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. BEECH GROVE CITY SCHOOLS, Appellee-Defendant. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ronald E. Weldy, Abrams & Weldy, Hammond & Hurns, Indianapolis, for Appellants.
David L. Swider, Susan Oliver, Bose McKinney & Evans, Robert W. Rund, D. Michael Wallman, Rund Wallman & Robbins, Indianapolis, for Appellee.
Appellants-plaintiffs Tabatha J. Naugle and Sandra M. Cain (collectively, "Employees") appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant Beech Grove City Schools (Beech Grove). Specifically, Employees argue that the trial court erred in finding for a number of reasons that Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1, the Wage Payment Statute, did not apply in this case. Finding no support for the argument that "days" as used in the Wage Payment Statute means "business days," but concluding that the Wage Payment Statute does not apply to Beech Grove under the reasoning in Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 824 N.E.2d 336 (Ind.2005), we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Naugle and Cain were employed at Beech Grove as custodians during 2003. Prior to 2003, Beech Grove compensated its employees twenty-six times during a calendar year. Under this former payroll method, Beech Grove paid its employees seven calendar days after the end of each pay period. But during 2003, there were twenty-seven pay dates, an anomaly that occurs every seven years, and Beech Grove usually adjusted the pay method so that there were twenty-six pay dates when this had happened in the past. In addition, several employees had requested to receive their paychecks on the Wednesday before the four-day Thanksgiving break rather than on the Monday following the break. Beech Grove had been unable to do so under the prior payroll schedule because the shorter five-work-day waiting period allowed the school only three work days to prepare and issue the payroll before the break.
To address these issues, Beech Grove implemented a new payroll schedule beginning on July 11, 2003, in which it set back the first pay date in July 2003 from July 4 to July 11. The new payroll schedule also provided for the employees to receive their wages fourteen calendar days after the end of each pay period. Beech Grove received no employee complaints about the new payroll schedule, apart from a single employee who erroneously complained about losing one week of pay. Beech Grove discontinued the new payroll system on July 9, 2004, and returned to the previous seven-calendar-day waiting period.
Naugle voluntarily resigned from her employment with Beech Grove on October 24, 2003, and Cain was terminated by Beech Grove on February 6, 2004. On February 18, 2004, Employees filed suit against Beech Grove, alleging that Beech Grove had violated the Wage Payment Statute by failing to timely pay them their wages on a date not more than ten days after the date on which they were earned (the "Ten-Day Rule"). Employees initiated this claim as a class action, and they requested liquidated damages in the amount of forty percent of all gross wages paid fourteen days after the relevant pay period had ended. In essence, they requested as damages forty percent of one year's salary for each employee of Beech Grove. On May 28, 2004, Employees moved to be certified as a class of:
All current and former employees of Beech Grove City Schools who are or were employed by Beech Grove City Schools since May 9, 2003 who have been paid wages due and owing for a pay period more than ten (10) days after that pay period had ended in violation of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute and Wage Claim Statute.
Appellant's App. p. 180. The trial court has not yet ruled on this motion because the parties agreed to set it aside while concentrating on the issue of liability.
On November 12, 2004, Employees filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that Beech Grove was liable under the Wage Payment Statute for paying Employees more than ten days after the end of the pay period. On December 20, 2004, Beech Grove filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting a number of arguments, including that the Employees had been paid within ten business days of the end of the pay period and that there had been no demand for earlier payment. On March 14, 2005, the trial court heard oral argument on these motions. And on April 27, 2005, the trial court denied Employees' motion for partial summary judgment and granted Beech Grove's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the Wage Payment Statute requires a demand for payment before penal damages and attorney's fees may be assessed, that the statute intends "days" to mean business days rather than calendar days, that Beech Grove is not an employer under the Wage Payment Statute, that Beech Grove is immune from punitive damages as a public school system, and that the Wage Payment Statute is not applicable to the facts of this case. Employees now appeal.
Employees assert that the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment and in granting summary judgment to Beech Grove. Specifically, they raise a number of issues with the trial court's judgment, one of which we find dispositive: whether the word "employer" as used in the Wage Payment Statute includes school corporations.
Upon reviewing the grant or denial of summary judgment, we use the same standard of review as the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate only where the evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Poznanski v. Horvath, 788 N.E.2d 1255, 1258 (Ind.2003). We will construe all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Troxel v. Troxel, 737 N.E.2d 745, 748 (Ind.2000). The review of a summary judgment motion is limited to those materials designated to the trial court. Id.
The questions raised are issues of statutory construction. The interpretation of a statute is a legal question that is reviewed de novo. Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. McCarty, 755 N.E.2d 1104, 1106 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). Statutory interpretation is the responsibility of the court and within the exclusive province of the judiciary. Id. The first, and often the last, step in interpreting a statute is to examine the language of the statute. Id. When confronted with an unambiguous statute, we do not apply any rules of statutory construction other than to give the words and phrases of the statute their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning. Id. Moreover, statutes must be read as a whole, and statutory language must be read and interpreted in context. Schafer v. Sellersburg Town Council, 714 N.E.2d 212, 218 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). The goal in statutory construction is to determine and give effect to legislative intent. Hall Drive Ins., Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, 773 N.E.2d 255, 257 (Ind.2002).
The Wage Payment Statute states in pertinent part:
(a) Every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee. The payment shall be made in lawful money of the United States, by negotiable check, draft, or money order, or by electronic transfer to the financial institution designated by the employee. Any contract in violation of this subsection is void.
(b) Payment shall be made for all wages earned to a date not more than ten (10) days prior to the date of payment. However, this subsection does not prevent payments being made at shorter intervals than specified in this subsection, nor repeal any law providing for payments at shorter intervals. . . .
Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1(b). The goal of the Wage Payment Statute is to govern the frequency and amount that employees are paid. St. Vincent Hosp. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind.2002).
Initially, Employees contend that the trial court erred in finding that "days" means "business days" rather than "calendar days" within the context of the Wage Payment Statute. The Wage Payment Statute does not define the terms "days," nor is the word defined in the Construction of Statutes Act in the General Provisions Title. Ind.Code § 1-1-4-5.
Employees note that our Supreme Court defined the word "day" over sixty years ago:
Moag v. State, 218 Ind. 135, 141, 31 N.E.2d 629, 632 (1941) (quoting Benson v. Adams, 69 Ind. 353, 354 (1879)). Thus, where the word "days" is not defined as "business days," the default understanding is "calendar days," and it was error for the trial court to find otherwise.
Although Beech Grove cites to Koppin v. Strode, 761 N.E.2d 455, 461 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), we are not persuaded by this argument. The Koppin court found that the word "day" as used in a township policy providing military leave time is ambiguous and open to judicial interpretation because it may be Id. The regulation at issue provided for fifteen work days of military leave and defined "work day" as "an eight (8) hour period of regularly scheduled duty." Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schools
...that under Brownsburg public school corporations were not employers subject to the Wage Payment Statute. Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schs., 840 N.E.2d 854 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006). The Court of Appeals did not address the other grounds advanced by Beech Grove in support of the trial court's ruling......