Case Title: Chuck W. Adams, Charles E. Howard, et al. v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 49S02-1610-PL-532

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
APPELLANTS PRO SE 
ATTORNEYS FOR ARVINMERITOR, INC., ET AL. 
Chuck W. Adams 
 
 
 
 
 
Brian L. McDermott 
Bunker Hill, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
Christopher C. Murray 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ebony A. Reid 
Charles E. Howard  
 
 
 
 
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. 
Morgantown, Indiana  
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF INDIANA, ET AL.  
MICHAEL KINCADE, ANTONIO 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
COLLIER, AND DAVID MARZINI  
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
Robert S. Rifkin   
 
 
 
 
 
Clinton E. Blanck 
 
 
 
 
Frances Barrow  
 
 
 
 
Maurer Rifkin, P.C. 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General  
 
  
 
Carmel, Indiana  
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR CORIZON, INC., ET AL. 
Jeb A. Crandall 
Bleeke Dillon Crandall 
 
Rachel A. East 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S02-1610-PL-532  
 
CHUCK W. ADAMS, CHARLES E. HOWARD, 
ET AL.,  
 
 
 
Appellants (Plaintiffs below), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    v. 
 
ARVINMERITOR, INC., ET AL.,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellees (Defendants below).   
 
 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D14-1206-PL-025688 
The Honorable James B. Osborn, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1406-PL-00465 
__________________________________ 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 12 2016, 12:29 pm
 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 12, 2016 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
While Chuck Adams and Charles Howard were inmates at the Indiana Department of 
Correction (“DOC”) Correctional Industrial Facility (“CIF”), they worked at a privately-owned 
brake shop operated by Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems, LLC on the premises of CIF.  Indiana 
Code chapter 11-10-7 permits the DOC commissioner to enter agreements with private 
enterprises to establish “facilities within the exterior boundary of any state adult correctional 
facility, for the manufacturing and processing of goods or any other business, commercial, or 
agricultural enterprise.”  Ind. Code § 11-10-7-2.   
Adams and Howard filed a complaint alleging among other things that they are owed 
unpaid wages because they were not paid the “prevailing wage” for their work.  Indiana Code 
section 11-10-7-3 provides that “an offender employed by a private person under this chapter 
will be paid at least the prevailing wage for that type of work . . .  including applicable wage 
increases for overtime work.”  Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems and all its related companies, 
officers, and employees named as defendants (collectively “Meritor defendants”), and the State 
defendants1 filed motions to dismiss the wage claims, arguing in part that Indiana Code chapter 
11-10-7 does not create a private right of action.  The trial court granted the motions and 
dismissed the claims.    
  
A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Adams and Howard have a 
private right of action under section 11-10-7-4, which provides that an enterprise operating under 
                                                 
1 The named Meritor defendants are ArvinMeritor, Inc.; Meritor, Inc.; Meritor Heavy Equipment 
Systems, LLC; Joseph L. Mejaly; Catherine Auckland; Vernon Baker; ArvinMeritor; ArvinMeritor Brake 
Shop/Meritor Brake Shop; Dwight Treen; Jon Fowler; and Matt Durham.  The named State defendants 
relevant to the wage claims are Edwin G. Buss; Bruce Lemmon; the DOC; PEN Products; Mike Herron; 
Doug Evans; Becky Deeb; Dawn Morgan; Mark Spratt; Gregory F. Zoeller; Christopher A. Ruhl; Mark 
E. Everson; and the State of Indiana.  (Appellant's App. at 47.) 
 
3 
 
chapter 11-10-7 “is a private enterprise subject to laws governing the operation of similar 
enterprises in Indiana.”  Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 48 N.E.3d 1, 8-9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), 
aff’d on reh’g by, 53 N.E.3d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).  The majority noted that private 
enterprises are subject to the Wage Payment Statute, which allows an employee to file an action 
in court to collect unpaid wages.  See I.C. § 22-2-5-2.  And the majority concluded Adams and 
Howard may pursue their wage claims.  Adams, 48 N.E.3d at 9.2  Judge May dissented on this 
issue, concluding the trial court properly dismissed the wage claims because Indiana Code 
section 11-10-7-4 did not explicitly create a private right of action for offenders to pursue wage 
claims.  Id. at 16, and 53 N.E.3d at 1184 (May, J., dissenting in part).  The Meritor defendants 
seek transfer.    
 
We agree with Judge May.  We grant transfer, adopt and incorporate by reference the 
dissent’s original and rehearing opinions addressing the wage claims, see Ind. Appellate Rule 
58(A)(1), and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of these claims.  We summarily affirm those parts 
of the Court of Appeals opinions addressing Adams’s other claims.  See App. R. 58(A)(2).   
All Justices concur.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2Effective May 9, 2013, the Legislature amended the relevant statutes to exempt criminal offenders in a 
DOC facility from the Wage Payment and Wage Claim Statutes. (See P.L. No. 223-2013, secs. 4, 5, and 
6.)  As the majority noted, this Legislative action has “foreclose[d] any similar claims in the future.”  
Adams, 53 N.E.3d at 1183.