Court Opinion

ID: 9874679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:13:24.940025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:51.505089
License: Public Domain

Crone, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the State did not violate the State Personnel Act by retaining four employees classified as institutional teachers who held administrative licenses but had lower retention, scores than some of the Employees.11 Indiana Code Section, 4-15-2-32(a) specifically states that the order of lay-off for each class within a county is determined by retention points, not by licensing considerations. We may not read into a statute that which is not the expressed intent of the legislature. In re Guardianship of Stant, 50 N.E.3d 149, 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. In all other respects, I concur. •

. The majority's suggestion that the Employees were "patently unqualified” for those positions is an insult to them and ignores their years of loyal service.