Court Opinion

ID: 9505189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:02:14.120391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:19.437723
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I believe that the trial court properly analyzed this case and would affirm its judgment in favor of Nunamaker.
The Court’s analysis, while completely logical, proceeds from what in my view is an incorrect premise: that the Wage Payment Statute places on the employee the burden of proving his or her entitlement to be paid a certain amount under applicable law before an employer faces liability under the Statute. I think legislative intent could not be clearer that the whole purpose of the Statute is that employers must pay their employees the proper amount and pay it in a timely fashion. This purpose cannot be achieved if employers are not required to know what the proper amount is.
I note that the trial court’s and my interpretation of the Statute conforms with that of the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Labor, appearing as Amicus Curiae here. As the head of the administrative agency responsible for enforcing the Statute, the Commissioner’s interpretation is entitled to great weight. LTV Steel v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251, 1257 (Ind.2000).
RUCKER, J., concurs.