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

__________________________________
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 

defendants1filed 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.