Shaffer v. State
| Decision Date | 17 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A04-0208-CV-370.,49A04-0208-CV-370. |
| Citation | 795 N.E.2d 1072 |
| Parties | Charles SHAFFER, David Keesling, Montgomery Buffum, Martin Kipp, and Roscoe Smith, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. STATE of Indiana, the Indiana State Police Department, the Indiana State Police Board, the Indiana State Budget Agency, Patrick J. Bennett, James W. Heyde, David J. Allen, Robert B. McConnell, George Dexter Gardner, and Gwendolyn J. Morgan, in their official capacity as members of the Indiana State Police Board, and Melvin J. Carraway, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Indiana State Police Department, Appellees-Defendants. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James O. McDonald, Delmar P. Kuchaes, II, Everett, Everett & McDonald, Terre Haute, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, David L. Steiner, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.
State of Indiana employees Charles Shaffer, David Keesling, Montgomery Buffum, Martin Kipp, and Roscoe Smith (collectively "Managers") appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Indiana, the Indiana State Police Department, the Indiana State Police Board, the Indiana State Budget Agency, members of the Indiana State Police Board, and Melvin Carraway, the Superintendent of the Indiana State Police Department (collectively "the State"). Specifically, Managers contend that the State breached its employment contract with them by failing to pay them according to the salary matrix as provided in Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27.1 Because we conclude that this statute does not apply to Managers by virtue of their management positions, we affirm the trial court.
Managers are civilian employees of the Indiana State Police Department ("ISP") who hold management positions in the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division ("Division"). Specifically, Smith is employed as a Motor Carrier Inspector District Coordinator; Shaffer, Keesling, and Buffum are employed as Motor Carrier Inspector Zone Coordinators; and Kipp is employed as a Motor Carrier Inspector Administrator. In addition to these management positions in the Division, there is the rank of "Motor Carrier Inspector," which falls within the following job titles: Master Motor Carrier Inspector; Senior Master Motor Carrier Inspector; Motor Carrier Inspector; and Motor Carrier Inspector Trainee.2 Appellant's App. p. 147. These are all non-management positions.
In 1995, the Indiana General Assembly enacted Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27, which sets forth a salary matrix for motor carrier inspectors. According to the statute, which went into effect in 1996, the Indiana State Police Board ("Police Board") is charged with categorizing the salaries of motor carrier inspectors based upon rank and the number of years of service. Ind. Code § 10-11-2-27(a). The statute also provides that the Indiana State Budget Agency ("Budget Agency") must review and approve the salaries. I.C. § 10-11-2-27(c). In early 1996, Shaffer sent a letter to the Superintendent of the ISP inquiring whether the management positions of Motor Carrier Inspector Zone Coordinator and Motor Carrier Inspector Administrator would be covered by the salary matrix as set forth in Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27. The Superintendent replied that these positions Appellant's App. p. 141. The UNITY Team is the union that represents motor carrier inspectors.
In February 2000, Managers filed a complaint against the State. The complaint alleged breach of contract and sought damages as well as mandamus relief.3 Specifically, Managers alleged that the State breached its contract of employment with them by failing to pay them according to the salary matrix set forth in Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27. Managers therefore sought back pay as well as a writ of mandamus compelling the State to comply with Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27. In February 2002, Managers filed a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law granting summary judgment in favor of the State. This appeal ensued.4
Managers appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State. Specifically, Managers contend that the State breached its contract of employment with them by failing to pay them according to the salary matrix as provided in Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27. Managers also contend that they are entitled to mandamus relief compelling the State to comply with Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27. In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this Court faces the same issues that were before the trial court and follows the same process. Merrill v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH, 771 N.E.2d 1258, 1264 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002), trans. denied. We do not weigh evidence but, instead, liberally construe the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the designated evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Merrill, 771 N.E.2d at 1264. The party appealing a summary judgment ruling has the burden of persuading this Court that the grant or denial of summary judgment was erroneous. Merrill, 771 N.E.2d at 1264. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment on any legal basis supported by the designated evidence. Id. In its order granting summary judgment in favor of the State, the trial court concluded that Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27, which speaks in terms of "motor carrier inspectors," does not apply to Managers because they hold management positions. In order to address the reach of this statute, we turn to the language of Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27, which provides in pertinent part:
On appeal, Managers argue that "motor carrier inspectors" as used in this statute clearly and unambiguously means all motor carrier employees in the Division, including both those whose duty it is to inspect as well as those with management responsibility, such as themselves. The State, on the other hand, argues that "motor carrier inspectors" means only those motor carrier employees in the Division whose duty it is to inspect; otherwise, the statute would read "motor carrier employees." In essence, Managers claim that "motor carrier inspectors" has a generic meaning, that is, all motor carrier employees in the Division, while the State proposes that "motor carrier inspectors" has a specific meaning, that is, only those motor carrier employees in the Division whose duty it is to inspect. Because "motor carrier inspectors" as used in Indiana Code § 10-11-2-27 is subject to more than one interpretation, we conclude that it is ambiguous and therefore resort to principles of statutory construction. See Ross v. Ind. State Bd. of Nursing, 790 N.E.2d 110, 119 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)
.
trans. denied. When a statute is subject to different interpretations, the interpretation of the statute by the administrative agency charged with the duty of enforcing the statute is entitled to great weight, unless that interpretation is inconsistent with the statute itself. LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251, 1257 (Ind.2000). When a court is faced with two reasonable interpretations of a statute, one of which is supplied by an administrative agency charged with enforcing the statute, the court should defer to the agency. See Sullivan v. Day, 681 N.E.2d 713, 716 (Ind. 1997); see also Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Radigan, 755 N.E.2d 617, 624 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (Baker, J., concurring in result). When a court determines that an administrative agency's interpretation is reasonable, it should "terminate[ ] its analysis" and not address the reasonableness of the other party's interpretation. Ind. Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State ex rel. Ind. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 695 N.E.2d 99, 105 (Ind.1998); see also Radigan, 755 N.E.2d at 624. Terminating the analysis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. State Dept. of Correction
...is reasonable." Higgins v. State, 855 N.E.2d 338, 341-42 (Ind.Ct. App.2006) (companion case to Young) (citing Shaffer v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)). "Where it is unreasonable, or where it is inconsistent with the statute itself, we will, of course, accord it no deference." Id......
-
In re Adoption B.C.H.
...is a question of law reserved for the court. In re N.S., 908 N.E.2d 1176, 1180 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (quoting Shaffer v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)). We will give an unambiguous statute its clear and plain meaning. McCabe v. Comm'r, Ind. Dep't Ins., 949 N.E.2d 816, 819 (Ind.......
-
South Bend Community School Corp. v. Lucas
...Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 695 N.E.2d 99, 105 (Ind.1998); Sullivan v. Day, 681 N.E.2d 713, 716 (Ind.1997); Shaffer[v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)]; State Employees' Appeals Comm'n v. Barclay, 695 N.E.2d 957, 959-60 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (deferring to SEAC's interpreta......
-
Murphy v. Curtis
...agencies empowered to interpret and enforce statutes and increasing public reliance on agency interpretations.' ” Shaffer v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) Ind. Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State ex rel. Ind. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 695 N.E.2d 99, 105 (Ind.1998)).Discus......
-
Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches
...reliance on agency interpretations.” Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches Page 795 803 N.E.2d at 273 (quoting Shafer v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). * * * * VI. he inal issue is whether the trial court erred in determining that the OEM decision that IDEM prop......
-
Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches
...interpret and enforce statutes and increasing public reliance on agency interpretations.” 803 N.E.2d at 273 (quoting Shafer v. State , 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). **** VI. he inal issue is whether the trial court erred in determining that the OEM decision that IDEM properly......
-
Addressing the problem: the judicial branches
...interpret and enforce statutes and increasing public reliance on agency interpretations.” 803 N.E.2d at 273 (quoting Shaffer v. State , 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). . . . . VI. The final issue is whether the trial court erred in determining that the OEM decision that IDEM pr......