Case Name: Noe ESCAMILLA, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SHIEL SEXTON COMPANY, INC., Appellee-Defendant
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 2016-07-13
Citations: 62 N.E.3d 401
Docket Number: No. 54A01-1506-CT-602
Parties: Noe ESCAMILLA, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SHIEL SEXTON COMPANY, INC., Appellee-Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 3d
Volume: 62
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
Noe ESCAMILLA, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SHIEL SEXTON COMPANY, INC., Appellee-Defendant.
No. 54A01-1506-CT-602.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
July 13, 2016.
Timothy F. Devereüx, Daniel A. Laden-dorf, Ladendorf Law, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Rick D. Meils, Neil A. Davis, John W. Mervilde, Meils Thompson Dietz .& Berish, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee,
Alexander Jesus Limontes, Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for the Amicus Curiae.

Opinion:
DISSENT ON REHEARING
BAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
[1] I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to deny Escamilla's petition for rehearing and I wish to reiterate the position that I expressed in greater detail in my previous dissenting opinion. See Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., 64 N.E.3d 1013,-1023 (Ind.Ct.App.2016) (Baker, J.,. dissenting). I believe that knowledge of a party's immigration status alone sheds no meaningful light on the question of whether that party will one day face deportation. Such information cannot be "considered," in any real sense of the word, and can serve only as a basis for speculation that will likely result in prejudice. I would vote to grant the petition for rehearing as I believe that the majority should address these concerns.