The H onorab le G
. Pa tr ic k M urph y ofthe Southern Dist ri ct  ofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3166 J IL L L. T RE AT a nd C O D Y W. T R EA T, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v.
T OM K ELLEY B UI CK P ONT I AC GMC, I NC ., d/b/ a K ELLEY S UP ERSTORE , a nd K ELL EY A UTOMO TI VE G R OUP, I NC ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 08- cv-00173

—Wi ll iam C. L ee, Judg e.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 18, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 13, 2011

Befo re T IND ER a nd H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg es , an d M UR PHY, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e . Jill an d C od y T re at su ed th eir em plo yer, Tom K el l ey Bu i ck Ponti ac GM C, I nc. , and i ts2 N o. 10

- 3166 p ar en t d ea ler sh ip gro u p f o r failu re to p ay th em th eir c orre ct wages under Ind i ana s tat e l aw . The questi on p re se n te d by t h i s ap p ea l is w h et h er th e T re at s p ro p er ly br o ughtthe i r c l ai m s unde r the s ta te ’ s W ag e Pa y m en t St atute , I nd

. Code § 22- 2- 5- 1 ets eq . , or w h et h er th eir cl ai m s ag ains t Kel l eya r o se unde r a di ffer en t I ndi an a w age r eco ver y l aw , k n ow n as the W age Cl ai m s S tatute, I nd

. Code § 22- 2- 9- 1 ets eq . The di strict co urt concl ud ed th a tthe T r e a t s e r r o ne o us l y b r o ughtthe i r c l a i m un der the Pay m ent S tatu te ratherthan the Cl ai m s S tatute. Bec au se the Tr ea ts ha d n ot fi l ed th ei r c l ai m a cc o r di ng to the pr o ce dur e r equir ed unde r the Cl ai m s S ta tu te , the c ou rtgra n te d su m m ar y jud gm en t t o K elle y. Tre atv. Tom Kell ey B u ic k P ontiac GM C, Inc. , 71 0 F
. S up p. 2d 76 2 (N
. D
. I nd

. 2010), an d 710 F. Sup p . 2d 777 ( N
. D
. I nd

. 2010). W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtand affi rm i ts j ud gm ent.

I
. F ac t s an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d R e v i e win gth e di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n ts u mm ar y jud gm en t t o t h e d efe n d an ts , w e t a k e a ll fac ts in th e l i g htre as o nabl y m o stf av o r ab l e to the pl aint i ff s as the non- m oving p ar ti es. S ee A nders on v. Libe rty Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U
. S. 2 42 , 255 ( 1986 )
. The f acts m ate ri alto thi s a pp eal ar e undis pu ted. Defendant-a pp el l ee Tom Kell ey Bu i ck Ponti ac GM C runs a used cardeal er shi p i n Fo rtW ayne, I n d i a n a , a s p a r to fa gr o u p o fd e a l e r s h i p s kn o wn as th e K el l ey A utom oti ve Group. Pl ai nti ffJ i l l Tre at bega n w or ki ng atthe deal er shi p on J uly3, 20 06 as A ssi sta ntCo -Directo r o fthe S pec i alF i na nc e Depa r tment
. S he per su ad ed th e he ad o fthe de par tmentt o hi r e he r s o n,N o. 10

- 3166 3 pla i nti ffCody Tre at, wh o b eg an work i n the Speci al Fi nance Depart m ent o n J uly 10, 2006
. The Tre ats ’ em plo ym en t w ith K ell e y d id n ot last l ong , how ever. Both w ere fi re d on Octobe r 12, 20 06. F o l l o wi ngthe t er m i na ti o n o fthe i r e m pl o y m en t, th e Treat s fi l ed a c om pla i nt i n federa l co urt alle gi ng a va r i ety o ffede r ala nd s ta te cla i m s ag ains t Kel l ey . The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d Kel l ey ’ s su m m ary j udg m en t m oti on o n al l o fthe Treat s’ cl ai m s, exer ci si ng supple

me n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r th e ma t t e r s o fs t a t e l a w. The Treat s appeal onl y one of their s u bsta nti ve cl ai m s. They a rgue thatthe dist ri ct c ourt e rre d bydi sm i ssi ng the i r cl ai m f orunp ai d w age s br ought und er th e I ndi an a W ag e Pay m entS ta tu te
. The y a l so c o nt en d th atthe di stric t co ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y s tr i k i ng p orti ons ofJ i l l Tre at’ s a ffi davi t a nd at tached docum ents, but we do not re ach thi s i ssue. W e co ncl ud e the Tre ats faile d to ta ke th e n ec es sa ry st ep s t o p u rs u e a cla im u n d e r th e c o r r e c tI n d i a n a s t a t e l a w.

II. D i s cu s s i on W e begin by review ing the tw o I nd iana w age recov ery sta tutes : the Paym ent S tatute a nd the C laim s S tatute. Both ofthes e s tatutes, a n d q u est i ons about thei r appli cati o n, ha ve r ec ei ve d s ubs ta nt iala tt en ti o n fr o m the I n d i a n a s t a t e c o ur t s . A l th o u g h b o th p r o v i d e th e s a me re m edy f orsi m i l arwrongs, they r equi re di stinct pro
c e du r a l s t e ps bef o r e s uc h a r e med y ma y b e g r a nt e d. The que st i o n o fwhi chs ta tu te a ppl i es c o nt rol s th e4 N o. 10

- 3166

o ut co m e he r e, s o we ex ce rp t t he r el ev an t pr o vi si o ns atl en g th

. The Trea ts bro ught thei r sui t under I nd i ana C ode § 22- 2- 5- 1 ets eq . , enti tl ed “Fr equency o fW age Paym ents, ” which w e r efer t o as the W age Paym ent S tatute. Thi s s tatute provi des i n re l evantpart : Pa y m en t; v o l unt ar i l y l ea vinge m pl o y m en t Se c. 1. ( a) Ever y per son, fi rm , co rporati on, l i m i ted l i ab i l i ty c om pany, o r ass oci ati on, thei r tr ustee s, l ess ees , orr ecei ver s a pp oi nted by an y court, doi ng busi ness in Ind ian a, sh all p ay ea c h em p loy ee atle as t s em im o nthl y o r b iwee k l y, i fr eque st ed, the a m o untdue th e e m p loy ee . . . . ( b) P aym ent s hal l be m ade f oral l wages e ar ned to a date notm or e th an te n ( 10) business days pr i orto the da t e o fp a y men t
. Ho we v e r, thi s s ub s e c t i on does not preve nt paym ents bei ng m ade atshort er i nter vals than speci fi ed i n thi s s ubsect i on, norr epeal any l aw provi ding f orpaym ents at shor teri nter val s. H owever, i fan e m plo yee vo l untari l y l eave s e m plo yme n t, e i th e r p e r man e n t l y o r t e mp o r a r i l y, th e e mplo yershal l notbe re quir ed to pay the e m plo yee an amoun t due the e m pl o y ee unt i l the next us ua l a nd re gul ar day f or paym ent of w age s, as est abl i shed by th e empl o y er . I f an empl o y ee l ea ve s e m pl o y m en t vol untari l y, and w i thout the e m plo yee ’ s whereab outs o r a ddr es s beingkno wn to the e m pl o y er, the em plo yeri s no t s ubj ect to se c tion 2 o fthi s chapte r u n til:N o. 10

- 3166 5 ( 1) te n ( 10) busi ness days hav e e lap se d after the e m plo yee has m ade a dem and for the w age s du e the em plo yee ; o r ( 2) the em plo yee has furni shed the e m plo yer w i th the em plo yee ’ s a dd re ss w h er e the wages m ay be se n t o r for w ar d ed

. I nd

. Code § 22- 2- 5- 1. If an em p loy er fails to m ak e p ay m en t o f w a g e s in acco rdance w i th thi s chapte r, then the e m plo yerm ust,
as l i quid ate d dam age s forsuch f ai l ure, pay to such em p loy ee for e ac h d ay th at th e a m ou n t d u e t o h im r emai ns unpa i d ten p erce nt( 10 % ) o fthe a m o untdue to hi m i n a ddi tion the r et o , no t ex ce edingdo ubl e th e am ount o fwages due, and said d am age s m ay be re c ov er ed i n any cour t hav i ng j uri sdic ti on o fa sui t t o re c ov e r th e a m ou n t d u e t o s u c h em p loy ee , an d in an y s ui t so b r o ug htt o r ec ove r s ai d wag es o r the l i qui dat ed damag es f o r no npa y m en t thereo f, o r b o th, the c ourt shal l ta x and asse ss as cos ts i n sai d case a r eas onabl e fee f orthe pla i nti ff’ s a tto rneyo r att or neys. I nd

. Code § 22- 2- 5- 2. Kel l eya r g ue s, and the di st r i ctc o ur t he l d, tha t th e Treat s s houl d have pro ceeded und er I nd i ana Code § 22- 2- 9- 1 e t se q. , enti tl ed “W age Cl ai m s, ” which we re ferto as th e W a g e C laim s St at u te . Th is s ta tu te p ro vid es in re lev an t p ar t: Disc h ar ge ofem plo yee ; unpaid wages; paym ent; l abordi sputes6 N o. 10

- 3166 S ec . 2
. ( a) W he ne ve r a ny e m pl o y ers epa r at es a ny em plo yee fro m the pay -ro l l, the unp ai d w age s o r co m pen sa ti o n o fs uche m pl o y ee s ha l l b ec o m e due an d p ay ab le a t re gu lar p a y d ay for p ay p er iod in w h ich se p ar at ion oc c u rre d

. . . . Disputes ; paym ent o fam ount a gr eed upon Se c. 3
. I n c a s e o fa di s pu t e o v e r wa g e s , the e mpl oye r sh all gi ve noti ce t o the e m plo yee o fthe am ount o f w age s w hi c h he c o nc e de s t o b e du e , a nd s ha l l p ay s u c ha mo u n t, w i th o u tc o n di t i o n, w i th i n th e t i me fi x e d b y th i s c h a p t e r , bu tth e a c c e p t a n c e b y th e e mplo yee o fan y pay m ent m ade under thi s chapte r sh all n otco n st itu te a re lea se as to an y b ala n c e o f h is c laim

. I nd

. Code §§ 22- 2- 9- 2 a nd - 3. W he n s ucha di spute a r i se s be twe ena n e m pl o y era nd a fi re d em plo yee , the Clai m s S tatute m ak es it the “duty ofthe [ I nd i ana] co m m i ssi onero fl aborto enf or ce a nd to in su re co m pli ance with the provi si ons ofthi s chapte r, to i nvest i gat e a ny vi ol ati ons ofa n y o fthe provi si ons of thi s chapte r, an d to i nsti tute orcause to be i nsti tuted ac tio n s fo r p en alt ies an d forfe itu re s p ro vid e d u n d er th is cha p ter
. ” Ind

. Code § 22- 2- 9- 4( a)
. The co m m i ssi oner m ay refer c lai m s t o the s tat e a tto rneyge nera l, wh o m ay then i ni ti ate a ci vi l act i on o n behal fo fthe cl ai m ant o r re fer th e clai m an t to an att orney . See Ind

. Cod e § 22-2-9-4(b). U nd erthe Clai m s S tatute, cl ai m ants ar e e nti tl ed to re cove r l i quidate d dam age s a nd at torney fees as se t f o r th i n I nd

. Co de § 2 2

- 2

- 5

- 2 , the s a me pr o v i s i o n tha t al l ows f or r eco ver y under the Pay m ent S tatute. Thus,N o. 10

- 3166 7 al th o ug h the ul ti m at e r emedy unde r eithers ta tu te i s th e sam e, a cl ai m ant und er the Clai m s St atute m ust p ro ceed th r o ug h the I nd iana co m m i ss i o ne r o fl ab o r, who ha s th e du ty ofi nvest i gat i ng a cl ai m an d in sti tuti ng an acti on on be hal fo fa cl ai m ant, wh er eas the Paym ent S tatute p er m its a c laim an t t o b rin g h is or h er ow n cla im in “any cour t hav i ng j uri sdic ti on. ” Ind

. Code § 22- 2- 5- 2. T h e T r e a t s a r g u e th a tth e y p r o p e r l y fi l e d th e i r c o mpla i nt i n the dist ri ct c ourtr atherthan w ith the com m i ssioner of l abor bec au se, th ey m aintain, their clai m s are g o vern ed bythe Pa y m en t S ta tu te
. W e di sa g r ee . The l an g ua g e o fthe I ndi an a Co de su g g es ts, and the I ndi an a sta te cour ts have re peatedl y c on fi rm ed, thatthe Paym ent S tatute pr ovi des an a venue f orr el i efto em ployee s s e e k i n g unp a i d w a g e s w h o v o l u n t a r i l y l e a v e th e i r e mplo ym ent o r w ho rem ain em plo yed and w hose wages a r e o v e r d u e . T h e C l a i ms S t a t u t e , o n th e o th e r h a nd , ap p lies to em p loy ee s s ee kin g u n p aid w ag e s aft er th eir em plo yerhas fi re d them

. H er e, al l ag re e that the te rm i nati o n o fthe Tr ea ts ’ e m pl o y m en t w as i nv o l unt ar y . The Treat s’ cl ai m s there f or e a ri se und erthe Clai m s S tatute. I n St. VincentHospit al an d H ealth C are C ent er, Inc. v. Ste el e, 7 66 N. E. 2d 6 9 9 , 7 0 5 ( I nd. 2 00 2) , t he India na S up re m e Cour t t aught that the two st atute s a p p l y t o d i ffe r e n t, mu t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s o fc l a i mants —tho se fi r ed bythe ir em p l o y er s, a nd tho se who l e ftv o l un t a r i l y o r a r e s t i l l empl o y e d. Dr
. S t e e l e fi l e d a com pla i nt sui ng hi s e m plo yerf orvi ol ati ng the Paym ent S tatute byf ai l i ng to pay hi m the fullam ount o f co m pen sa ti o n due underthe par ti es ’ ag r ee m en t. Thr o ug hou t t h e d isp u te an d th e s u b s eq u en t litig at ion , D r. Ste ele8 N o. 10

- 3166

r emai ne d a n e m pl o y ee o f St. V i nc en t. The c o ur t f o und th atb ec au se Dr
. S te el e was a c ur r en t empl o y ee at th e ti m e o fthe w age di spute, he pr oce eded cor re ctl y under th e P ay m en t St at u te . Th e c ou rtex p lain ed : The W ag e Cl ai m s S ta tu te r efer en ces e m pl o y ee s who have been separ ate d fr om w or k b y thei r em plo yer a nd e mpl o y e e s wh o s e wo r kh a s b e e n s us pe nd e d a s a resu lt ofan ind us trial d isp ut e. I
. C
. § 22-2-9- 2(a)(b). By c o nt r a s t, the Wag e P a y men tS t a t ut e r e fe r e nces c u rre n t e m p loy ee s a n d th os e w h o h a ve vo lu n ta rily l eft em plo ym ent, ei therper m anentl y o r tem pora ri l y. I
. C
. § 22-2-5- 1(b). 766 N
. E.2 d at 7 05. A l though thi s pro nounc em en t fr om th e c ou rtw as n otce n tr al t o its h old in g in th at ca se , i t w as a clear i nd ication o f t he I nd iana Su p rem e C ou rt’s vi ew . Our j ob i n thi s ca se i s t o apply the s tat e l aw as w e pr edi ct the st ate suprem e cou rt would. S ee Le wis v. M e t hodis tHos pi t al, Inc . , 326 F.3d 851 , 856 (7th C ir. 2003). Fol l owin g Ste el e, the I nd i ana Courto fA pp eal s has appli ed and i nter prete d the t w o sta tutes a n d t he st ate su pr eme c o ur t’ s lan g ua g e i n s ev er alde ci si o ns . One f avo rs the Treat s’ posi ti on a nd the othe rs weigh aga i nst i t. The Tr ea ts r ely o n M cCa usl and v . Walte r U SA , Inc. , 91 8 N
. E.2 d 420 ( I nd

. A pp . 20 09) , i n w h ich the pla i nti fffi l ed a co m pla i nt ag ai nst hi s e m plo yerf orvio lati ons ofbo th the Pay m ent St at u te and the Cl ai m s S tatute. Fi rs t, M c C au sla n d cla im ed th at h is e m p loy er f a i led to tim ely pay hi m sa l es com m i ssi ons , bo nuses, and vaca ti on pay thro ughout the co urse o f hi s e m plo ym ent a s r equi re d by th e Pa y m en t S ta tu te
. S ec o nd, he cl ai m ed th attheN o. 10

- 3166 9

The M cC ausl and f ootnot e m igh t be di s t i ngui s he d on a 1 nar ro w f actu al bas i s be c aus e the c l ai m s thatar os e duri ng em pl oym en ti n thatc as e were on l y f or l at e paym en t, no tf or (co n tin u ed ...) empl o y erf ai l ed to pa y hi m e arne d s al es c o m m i ss i o ns f ol l owing hi s t er m i nati on, so thathe was al so en ti tl ed to dam age s under the Cl ai m s S tatute fortho se w ro ngs. T he Cou rt of A p p eals a ff irm ed the trial cou rt’s sum m ary j u d gm ent in f avo r ofthe em plo yer . I n a foo tno t e , the c o ur te xp l a i ne d: W al ter [th e e m plo yer ] cl ai m s that M cCausl and m ay n o tb r i n ga n y c l a i ms u n d e rth e Wa g e Pa y m en t Statu te bec au se he w as fi red

. H ow ever, M cC au sland ’s cl ai m s co ncer n the al lege d untim el y pay m ent o f co m m i ss i o ns , b onuse s, a nd v ac at i o n pa y tha t he r ec ei ve d wh il e s ti l l e m pl o y ed wi thW al te r a nd u n p aid co m m iss ion s h e d id n otrec eiv e a f t er h is te r m i na ti o n. The r ef o r e , we c o n c l u d e th at he proper l y bro ught cl ai m s und er both th e W age Paym ent S tatute a nd the W age Cl ai m s S tatute. 91 8 N
. E.2 d at 4 24 n. 2. W e a gr ee w i th the Tre ats that th e st atut es a r e ambi g uo us a s appl i ed i n a c as e l i k e th e Tr e a t s ’ th a tc o mb i n e s c l a i ms th a ta r o s e b o th d u r i ng em plo ym ent a nd afterfi ring. I fthe M cCaus l and f oo tnot e w er e t h e o n ly so lid ev id en c e o f Ind ian a la w , i t w ou ld c a r r y mo r e we i g ht

. Bu tthe M cC aus l and f oo tnot e di d not c ite or ad d re ss th e In d ian a Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ic t u m in Ste el e . S eve ra l o therCourto fA pp eal s deci si ons have f ol l owed the Steele dictum , and o ne speci fi cal l y re j ected the M cCaus l and f oo tnot e. 110 N o. 10

- 3166

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 underpa y m en t, butne i the r the s t atut or y l ang uage no r the court’ s opinion i nd ic ates thats uch a dist inct io n s h ould carry an y w eig ht. I n G avin v. C alcars AB , Inc. , 9 3 8 N. E.2 d 1 2 7 0 ( I nd

. App
. 20 10 ), a form er em p loy ee filed a c om p lain t a ga in s t h is empl o y era fte r he was fi r ed. Re l y i ngo n the I ndi an a S upr eme Co ur t’ s g ui dan ce i n Ste el e, th e C ou rtof A p p ea ls deter m i ned that w hen a cl ai m ant “b rings a wage dispute a fterbeing i nvol untari l y t er m i nated .

. . he m ust bring hi s cl ai m under the W age Cl ai m s St at u te. ” 9 38 N
. E. 2d at1 27 1. The c o ur t dec l i ne d t o fol l o w the l anguage i n the M cCaus l andf oo tnot e a nd co nc luded that the pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m w as b ar re d as a m att ero fl aw b e c a u s e h e d i d n o tfi l e h i s co mpl a i n tw i th th e s t a t e c o mm i ssi onero fl aboras r equi re d by the Cl ai m s Statute. S ee i d. at12 71- 72. The Co ur t o fAppea l s appl i ed th e sa m e r ea so ni ng i n H o l l i s v. D e

f e nde rSe cu r i ty Co. , 9 4 1 N
. E
. 2 d 5 3 6 ( I nd

. A pp . 20 11) , i n w hi ch H ol l i s had b ee n fir ed and then sued hi s e m plo yerf orvi ol ati ng the Paym ent S tatute byf ai l i ngt o pa y a g r ee d wag es i n a ti m ely f as hi o n. 94 1 N
. E. 2d at5 37. Hol l i s ar g ue d tha t th e Pa y m en t S t at u te ap p lied be c au se h e s ou gh t p ay m en t o n ly f o r v i o l a t i o n s th a to c c u r r e d w h i l e h e w a s a n e mplo yee. Look i ng to Ste el e, the Court ofA pp eal s r ej ecte d Ho l l i s ’ s r e a s o ning : “ Ba s e d o n [ Ho l l i s ’ s ] p r o po s e d a pp lica tio n of th e s ta tu to ry fram ew or k, an inv olu n ta rily se par at ed em p l o y ee woul d ha ve t o fi l e a co m pl aintN o. 10

- 3166 11 ba se d o n the W ag e Pa y m en t S ta tu te f o r a l l eg ed vi o l at i o ns th at oc c u rre d p rior to th e s ep ar at ion an d th en su b m it a s e p a r a t e c l a i m w i th th e D OL u nd e r th e Wa g e C l a i ms S ta tu te f o r a l l eg ed vi o l at i o ns tha t o cc ur r ed dur i ng the finalpay peri od. ” Id. at 539. “I t a l so see m s that [ H olli s’s ] i nter preta ti on would r em ove al l but the l asto f ani nv ol unt ar i l y s epa r at ed empl o y ee ’ s cl ai m s f r o m the pu rv i ew o fthe D epart m ent o fLabor

. ” Id. The H olli s c o u r tc o n c l u d e d th a ta n e m p l o y e e ’ s s t a t u s a tth e t i me the c l ai m i s fi l ed deter m i nes whether the e m p loy ee mu s tp r o c e e d u n d e r th e P a y me n tS t a t u t e o r th e C l a i ms St atute , and the cour t uphel d the t ri alco u rt ’s di sm i ssa l ofcl ai m s o fthe fire d H olli s under the Pay m ent S tatute. Se e i d. at 5 40; se e a l so Q ui m b y v . Be co vi c M anag e m e nt G roup, Inc. , 94 6 N
. E.2 d 30, 33

- 34 ( I nd

. A pp . 20 11) ( a ffi r mi n gj u d g me n ti n f a v o r o fe mp l o y e r w h e r e e mpl o y e e , wh o v o l un t a r i l y l e fthe r empl o y men t, ha d a l r e a dy r ec o ve r ed f o r he r l o stwag es thr ou gh the de par tment of lab or ev en th ou gh s h e c ou ld h av e b ro u gh t h er cla im in co u rtu n d er th e P ay m en t St at u t e ) ; E & L Ren t al Equ ipm ent, Inc. v. Br e s l and, 7 8 2 N. E. 2 d 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 0 ( I nd

. App
. 20 03 ) (h old i n g t h at em p loy ee w h o q u it v olu n ta rily sh o ul d ha ve b r o ug hthi s cl ai m unde r the Pa y m en t St at u te rat h er t h a n th e C laim s St at u te ). Th e p lain tiffs in H ol l i s and G avin pet iti one d the Ind iana Su p rem e C ou rt f o r t r a n s fe r . Aft e r c o n s o l i d a t i n gth e i r c l a i m s f o r r e v i e w, the c ourtdeni ed both peti ti ons on J une 22, 20 11. To s uppo r t th ei r po si ti o n tha t th e e m pl o y m en t st atus ofan e m plo yee a t the ti m e a wage cl ai m ar i ses , thati s, w hen the disc re pancy i n pay a ri se s, deter m i nes which sta tute shoul d a pp l y, the Treat s al so re l y on tw o fe deral12 N o. 10

- 3166 deci si ons , An de rs on v . Nor t he as tOt ol aryn go l ogy, P. C. , 20 06 W L 23 31 14 2, at *2 (S.D . In d . A u g. 10 , 200 6), o bj e c t i ons o verru led, 2 00 6 W L 3 4873 33 ( S
. D. I nd. De c. 1 , 2 00 6) , a nd Har ney v . Sp e e dway S upe rAm e r i ca, LL C, 20 07 W L 27 1082 4, at * 3- * 5 ( S
. D. I nd. S ept
. 1 3, 2 00 7) , b utne i th erc o unters the wei ght o fthe Steele di ctum an d th e o th er I ndi an a Court ofA pp eal s deci si ons. The i ss ue i n Ande rs on v. Nor t he as tO t ol aryng ol ogy wa s w h e th e r th e p l a i n t i ffh a d fi l e d h e r w a g e c l a i ms w i thi n the sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons. S ee 2006 W L 23311 42, at * 2. The case sheds no l i ght on the i ssue i n thi s c as e. In f ac t, the pl aint i ffi n An d e r s on had fi l ed a c om pla i nt with th e com m iss ion er of l ab or an d w as p ro c ee d in g p r o p er ly u n d e r th e C l a i ms S t a t u t e , a s i s e v i d e n tfr o m th e c o mpla i n t in t he cas e. S ee Com pla i nt, Docke t Entr y No. 1, C au se N o. 1: 06-cv-003 7 (S. D
. I nd

. J an . 10, 2006 ). The Tre at s’ re l i an ce o n Har ney v. Spe e dway S upe rAm e r i ca, LLCi s also m isplaced

. Th e pla in tiffs in th at cas e w ere sto re m anage rs wh o cl ai m ed that they w er e pai d bonuses t o o l a t e u n d e r b o th th e P a y m e n tS t a t u t e a n d C l a i ms S ta tu te
. The di stri ct c o ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t to the e m pl o y ero n the mer i ts , b uta l so s ta te d i n di ctum tha tc l a i ms f o r b o nu s e s thatth e fi r e d Har ney p lai nt iffs did notr ecei ve bef or e be i ng fi re d w er e g ove rned by th e Claim s Statu te, w hile those p aid w he n th e plaintiff s w er e s ti l l em plo yed , t h ou gh pastthe ti m e due, would be go v e r ne d b y the P a y men tS t a t ut e . S e e 2 0 0 7WL 2 7 1 0 8 2 4, at * 3. I n l i ght o fthe am bi gui ty i n the sta tutes , the distr i ctc o ur t’ s di ctum i n Ha rney i s a r eas onabl e way t o i nt er pr etthe m i n a c as e m i xi ng p re - fi r i nga nd po st
- fi r i ngN o. 10

- 3166 13 cl ai m s. But i n l i ght o fthe m or e r ec en t Ind i ana Courto f A p p eals de cisions an d the Ind iana Su p rem e C ou rt’s d ec isio n s t o d en y r e v iew , ou r b es t p re d ict ion atth is poi nt i s that the Ind i ana S up re m e Cour t would ag re e wi th H o llis a nd Gavi n an d th e d ist ric t cou rt ’s an a l y s i s in th is c as e. T h e T re at s’ c laim s fo r u n p aid w ag es h er e fe ll und er t he W age Cl ai m s S tatute. They c annot re cove r und erthe W age Paym ent S tatute o n the c lai m s for un pa i d wa g e s the y b r o ughta ft e r the y we r e fi r e d. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

7- 13- 11