A PPELLANTS P RO S E A TTORNEYS FO R A RVIN M ERITOR , I NC ., ET AL

.

Chuck W. Adams Brian L. Mc Dermott Bunker Hill, Indiana Christopher C. Murray Ebony A. Reid Charles E. Howard Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. Morgantown, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

A TTORNEYS FOR A MICI C URIA E A TTORNEYS FOR S TATE OF I NDIANA , ET AL

. M ICHAEL K INCADE , A NTONIO Gregory F. Zoeller C OLLIER , A ND D A VID M ARZINI Attorney General of Indiana Robert S. Rifkin Clinton E. Blanck Frances Barrow Maurer Rifkin
, P.C. Deputy Attorney General Carmel, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

A TTORNEYS F OR C ORIZON , I NC ., ET AL

. Jeb A. Crandall Bleeke Dillon Crandall

Rachel A. East Indianapolis, Indiana

___________________________________ __________________________________________



# In the Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________
No. 49S02

- 1610

- PL

- 532

C HUCK W. A DAMS , C HARLES E. H OWAR D , ET AL ., Appellants (Plaintiffs below)

,

v.

A RVIN M ERITOR , I NC

. , 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

__________________________________2 October 12, 2 016

Per Curiam.

While Chuck Adams and Charles Howard were inmates at the Indiana Department of
Correction (“D OC ” ) 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 c hapter 11

- 10

- 7 permits the DOC comm issioner to enter agreement s with private
enterprise s 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 enterpris e.” Ind. Code § 11

- 10

- 7

- 2

.
A dams 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 preva iling wage for that type of work . . . including applicable wage

increases for overtime work. ” Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems and all its related companies
, officers, and emplo yees named as defendants (collectively “Meritor defendants ” ) , and the State

defendants 1 filed motion s to dismiss the wage claims , arguing in part that Indiana Code c hapter

11

- 10

- 7 does not create a private right of action . The trial court granted the moti ons and

dismissed the claims.
A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Adams and Howard ha ve a
private right of action under section 11

- 10

- 7

- 4, which provides that an enterprise operating under

1 The named M eritor 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 Mat t Durham. The named State defendants rel evant 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 p rivate
enterprises are subjec t to the Wage Payment S tatute , which a llows an employee to file a n 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 d id not explicitly create a private right of action for offenders to pursue wage

claims

. Id. at 16, and 53 N.E.3d at 11 84 (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 o pinions addressing the wage claims, see Ind. Appellate Rule

5 8(A)(1), and affirm t he trial court ’s dismissal of the se claims. We summarily a ffirm those parts

of the Court of Appeals opinion s addressing A dams’s other claims

. See App. R. 58(A)(2).

All Justices concur.

2 Effective May 9, 2013, the Legislature a mended 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, sec s . 4 , 5, and 6. ) As the majority noted, this Le gislat ive action has “ foreclose[d ] any similar claims in the future. ” Adams , 53 N.E. 3 d at 1183.