Town of Highland v. Powell
Decision Date | 17 February 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 3--374A41,3--374A41 |
Citation | 341 N.E.2d 804,168 Ind.App. 123 |
Parties | TOWN OF HIGHLAND, Indiana, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Dennis POWELL, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jerry L. Colglazier, Bainbridge and Colglazier, Highland, John P. Price, J. Lynn Boese, Bingham, Summers, Welsh & Spilman, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Max Cohen, Cohen & Thiros, Gary, for appellee.
Dennis Powell was an employee of the Town of Highland Police Department from March 1969 until October 1970. A dispute arose regarding whether Powell voluntarily resigned or whether his employment was involuntarily terminated in contravention of the procedures established in IC 1971, 18--1--11--3 (Burns Code Ed.). Later, the trial court concluded that Powell was illegally dismissed. The trial court ordered that Powell be reinstated as a member of the Town of Highland Police Department and be paid all wages and salary withheld from him from October 1970 until the date of his reinstatement. In its appeal from the order, the Town of Highland raises these issues for our review:
(1) Is there sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Powell did not resign but was illegally dismissed?
(2) Did the court err when it ordered the Board of Police Commissioners to pay Powell all wages and salary withheld without a set-off for amounts earned from other employment?
(3) Was the testimony of two police officers improperly excluded?
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Powell did not resign but was illegally dismissed. The back pay order of the trial court was proper under the statute. No error was committed by the trial court in excluding the testimony of two police officers. We affirm.
The Highland Police Commission met on October 13, 1970 in executive session. The minutes of the meeting contained the following summary:
On October 15, 1970, Police Chief William Needles informed Powell that the Commission had decided to terminate him. Needles testified that he gave Powell an opportunity to voluntarily resign from the department; but, Powell testified that, when he told Needles that he would have to seek legal advice, Needles 'said then that he had no other alternative but to let me go, and he asked me for my badge, and I gave him my badge and my identification . . ..' In response, Needles testified that Powell stated that he would rather resign than be terminated and promised to send a letter of resignation the next day.
The next day, Powell contacted an attorney who advised him to contact Needles. Powell called Needles (Powell's mother was listening on an extension phone and corroborated Powell's version of the conversation) and said that he was not resigning as Needles had asked him to do. Needles replied that Powell no longer worked for him. When Powell said that he was ready to go back to work, Needles informed him that he was 'suspended as of now, and click went the phone.'
Later, October 19, 1970, Powell wrote Needles a letter and stated, in part: 'I have not resigned and request that if I am suspended as you say or fired, that I be informed as to why and for how long.' Needles responded curtly, in a letter dated October 20, 1970: 'In answer to your letter I received (sic), You are not a member of the Highland Police Dept.'
Powell was never served with notice of a hearing, was never advised prior to the meeting of the Commission that his employment would be a subject of discussion, and never received a copy of any charges against him. Powell never submitted a letter of resignation to the Highland Police Department. Powell's attorney, on November 17, 1970, demanded a hearing before the Police Commission and asked that the charges against Powell be set forth in writing. 1 On November 18, 1970, Powell instituted the present action.
The procedures for dismissal are provided by statute 2 and by the Rules and Regulations of the Police Department of Highland, Indiana. 3 In IC 1971, 18--1--11--3 (Burns Code Ed.), it is provided that:
(emphasis added).
The Highland Police Department Rules and Regulations provide that:
'An Officer may be punished by reprimand, forfeiture, suspension without pay, dismissal or reduction in rank and pay according to the statutes provided in Burns' Statutes Annot., Sec. 48--6105 (IC 18--1--11--3).' Rules and Regulations Governing the Police Department of Highland, Indiana, p. 6 (approved October 22, 1963).
If a member of the police force voluntarily terminates his contract of employment, he waives his rights under the Tenure Act. 4 See State ex rel. Palm v. City of Brazil (1947), 225 Ind. 308, 73 N.E.2d 485, rehearing denied, 74 N.E.2d 917. The trial court found that Powell did not resign from the Highland Police Department, and we conclude that the court's finding is supported by the evidence. The evidence was conflicting. Powell testified that he did not resign. Chief Needles testified that Powell orally resigned and promised to send a letter of resignation to him the next day. 5 There is substantial evidence of probative value to sustain the finding that Powell did not resign.
Powell was entitled to all procedural safeguards established in section 18--1--11--3. 6 The trial court concluded that Powell was discharged in violation of the section 18--1--11--3 procedures and that the Town's action was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. There is ample evidence of probative value to sustain the trial court's conclusion. In addition to a lack of notice and written charges previously discussed, no statutory ground for dismissal was ever alleged by the Board of Police Commissioners. 7 See State ex rel. Felthoff v. Richards (1932),203 Ind. 637, 180 N.E. 596.
The trial court concluded that Powell was 'entitled to all salary or wages withheld from him, from and after October 1970 to and including the date of his reinstatement.' The Town contends that the court's conclusion was erroneous in that there was no reduction for amounts earned by Powell from other employment during this period. If the action of the trial court is sustainable on any theory, it must be affirmed. See Indiana & Mich. Elec. Co. v. Schnuck (1973), 260 Ind. 632, 298 N.E.2d 436; In re Estate of Barnett (1974), Ind.App., 307 N.E.2d 490.
Section 18--1--11--3 not only provides the procedures for dismissal or suspension of policemen, but also provides a procedure for 'appeal' of the Board's decision and a statutory remedy in the case that the decision is reversed or modified on appeal:
'If such decision be reversed or modified, then such board shall pay to the party entitled thereto any salary or wages withheld from such party pending such appeal and to which he or she may be entitled under the judgment of said court.' IC 1971, 18--1--11--3 (Burns Code Ed.).
The statute clearly entitles the improperly discharged policeman to all wages or salary withheld without mitigation or set-off for amounts earned from other employment. City of Lebanon v. DeBard (1941), 110 Ind.App. 79, 37 N.E.2d 718; Bole v. Civil City of Ligonier (1962), 242 Ind. 627, 181 N.E.2d 236.
The Town contends that if Powell was dismissed, he was not dismissed pursuant to the statutory procedures and is not entitled to the statutory remedy. The Town urges this Court ot limit Powell's recovery to that allowable in breach of contract actions--that is, an amount equal to that which Powell would have received had he not been wrongfully dismissed less what he received in earnings from other occupations. 8
Since the trial court could have reasonably considered that Powell's action was a statutory 'appeal' from the decision of the Board of Police Commissioners to terminate his employment, the trial court's award is proper. The statute provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Speedway v. Harris
...of the injured party's responsibility to mitigate damages when a denial of due process has occurred, See, Town of Highland v. Powell (1976), Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 804; City of Lebanon v. DeBard (1941), 110 Ind.App. 79, 37 N.E.2d 718; Bole v. Civil City of Ligonier (1962), 242 Ind. 627, 181 N......
-
Dias v. Daisy-Heddon
...in the future." It is well settled under Indiana law that a party cannot manufacture evidence in its favor, Town of Highland v. Powell (1976), Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 804, at 810, and that " '(s)elf-serving statements or declarations by the party or his attorney not under oath cannot constitut......
-
O'Brien v. City of Frankfort
...488 (Ind. 1947) (the Tenure Act "was not passed for the benefit of those who quit and resign their jobs"); Town of Highland v. Powell, 341 N.E.2d 804, 807 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) (a member of a policeforce who voluntarily terminates his contract of employment waives his due process rights unde......
-
City of Terre Haute v. Brighton
...under the court's judgment. The statutory remedy has been distinguished from common law actions. See, Town of Highland v. Powell, (1976) 168 Ind.App. 123, 128-29, 341 N.E.2d 804, 808-09; cf., City of Fort Wayne v. Bishop, (1950) 228 Ind. 304, 310-12, 92 N.E.2d 544, 546-47. Notwithstanding t......