FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Trice and Orr represent Purdue in Age Discrimination Case

Lafayette, Indiana – June 29, 2006 – Stuart & Branigin LLP partners Deborah B. Trice and Karen R. Orr successfully represented the Board of Trustees of Purdue University in a case in which the Indiana Supreme Court held that employees alleging age discrimination could not sue the university for damages under state or federal law.

In Montgomery v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University, 849 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2006), the Court considered a claim brought by a former Purdue University employee who claimed that he was fired because of his age. Montgomery asserted that the Indiana Age Discrimination Act created an exception to the employment at will doctrine. On appeal, he also argued that by enacting the Indiana Age Discrimination Act, the Indiana General Assembly consented to suit under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Indiana Age Discrimination Act defines "employer" to exclude persons and governmental entities which are subject to the federal ADEA.

Purdue argued that the case should be dismissed for three reasons: (1) the Indiana Age Discrimination Act does not create an exception to employment at will; (2) despite Purdue's status as a state employer, Purdue remains "subject to" the ADEA through enforcement actions by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and actions by state employees for prospective, injunctive relief, such as reinstatement, against state officials acting in their official capacities and therefore Purdue did not meet the definition of "employer" under the IADA which excludes employers who are subject to the federal ADEA; and (3) although Montgomery claimed relief under the IADA, he failed to follow the statutory requirements to seek relief under that statute. The case was dismissed by the Tippecanoe Superior Court for failure to state a viable legal claim.

Montgomery appealed the trial court's dismissal of his case to the Indiana Court of Appeals which held that Purdue was "subject to" the ADEA, and affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the case. Montgomery sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. The Court granted transfer and heard arguments in October, 2005

The Indiana Suprme Court held that statements of public policy such as those found in the Indiana Age Discrimination Act do not authorize lawsuits for damages against employers. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Boehm, also analyzed recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving principles of sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. A series of ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the U.S. Congress does not have the power under Article I of the Constitution to subject unconsenting states to suit in federal court or their own state courts. In Kimel (FULL CITE), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act was enacted under Article I and absent consent by a state, the Eleventh Amendment bars actions for money damages by state employees against their state employers.

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the IADA does not create an exception to employment at-will and that the Indiana General Assembly did not consent to suit under the ADEA by enacting the IADA:

Indiana has not consented to suit under the ADEA by enacting the IADA. . . .[T]he IADA, though prohibiting discrimination in employment in terms similar to the ADEA, does not authorize aggrieved employees to bring private civil actions against their employers. Moreover, even if the IADA authorized private civil actions against state agencies, it would not constitute consent to suit by private individuals under the ADEA. Waiver of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by the states must be express, unequivocal and voluntary. It must be done “by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.” The IADA contains no express and unequivocal language by which Indiana consents to suits for damages brought by aggrieved state employees under the federal ADEA

Montgomery v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University, 849 N.E.2d 1120, 1125 (internal citations omitted). The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Montgomery's case for failure to state a claim.

This case reaffirms Indiana's commitment to employment at will. The reasoning of the Montgomery opinion is applicable to cases involving claims against state agencies brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that claims by state employees against their state employers for money damages under the ADA and the FLSA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The full text of the Indiana Supreme Court's opinion is available here.

Stuart & Branigin LLP has been providing legal services in Indiana since 1878. Today, the law firm has more than 30 experienced lawyers in two offices providing legal representation in such diverse areas as civil litigation and appellate matters; banking and creditors’ rights; business counseling; business transactions; buying and selling businesses; design and construction; education; employment; environmental; estates and trusts; health care; insurance; intellectual property; international; real estate, development, and zoning; and taxation.