Chuck W. Adams, Charles E. Howard, et al. v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., et al.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
APPELLANTS PRO SE Chuck W. Adams Bunker Hill, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR ARVINMERITOR, INC., ET AL. Brian L. McDermott Christopher C. Murray Ebony A. Reid Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana Charles E. Howard Morgantown, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE MICHAEL KINCADE, ANTONIO COLLIER, AND DAVID MARZINI Robert S. Rifkin Clinton E. Blanck Maurer Rifkin, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF INDIANA, ET AL. Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Frances Barrow Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR CORIZON, INC., ET AL. Jeb A. Crandall Bleeke Dillon Crandall Rachel A. East Indianapolis, Indiana _____________________________________________________________________________ FILED In the Indiana Supreme Court Oct 12 2016, 12:29 pm CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court _________________________________ No. 49S02-1610-PL-532 CHUCK W. ADAMS, CHARLES E. HOWARD, ET AL., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. ARVINMERITOR, INC., ET AL., Appellees (Defendants below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D14-1206-PL-025688 The Honorable James B. Osborn, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1406-PL-00465 __________________________________ October 12, 2016 Per Curiam. While Chuck Adams and Charles Howard were inmates at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) Correctional Industrial Facility (“CIF”), they worked at a privately-owned brake shop operated by Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems, LLC on the premises of CIF. Indiana Code chapter 11-10-7 permits the DOC commissioner to enter agreements with private enterprises to establish “facilities within the exterior boundary of any state adult correctional facility, for the manufacturing and processing of goods or any other business, commercial, or agricultural enterprise.” Ind. Code § 11-10-7-2. Adams and Howard filed a complaint alleging among other things that they are owed unpaid wages because they were not paid the “prevailing wage” for their work. Indiana Code section 11-10-7-3 provides that “an offender employed by a private person under this chapter will be paid at least the prevailing wage for that type of work . . . including applicable wage increases for overtime work.” Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems and all its related companies, officers, and employees named as defendants (collectively “Meritor defendants”), and the State defendants1 filed motions to dismiss the wage claims, arguing in part that Indiana Code chapter 11-10-7 does not create a private right of action. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the claims. A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Adams and Howard have a private right of action under section 11-10-7-4, which provides that an enterprise operating under 1 The named Meritor defendants are ArvinMeritor, Inc.; Meritor, Inc.; Meritor Heavy Equipment Systems, LLC; Joseph L. Mejaly; Catherine Auckland; Vernon Baker; ArvinMeritor; ArvinMeritor Brake Shop/Meritor Brake Shop; Dwight Treen; Jon Fowler; and Matt Durham. The named State defendants relevant to the wage claims are Edwin G. Buss; Bruce Lemmon; the DOC; PEN Products; Mike Herron; Doug Evans; Becky Deeb; Dawn Morgan; Mark Spratt; Gregory F. Zoeller; Christopher A. Ruhl; Mark E. Everson; and the State of Indiana. (Appellant's App. at 47.) 2 chapter 11-10-7 “is a private enterprise subject to laws governing the operation of similar enterprises in Indiana.” Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 48 N.E.3d 1, 8-9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), aff’d on reh’g by, 53 N.E.3d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The majority noted that private enterprises are subject to the Wage Payment Statute, which allows an employee to file an action in court to collect unpaid wages. See I.C. § 22-2-5-2. And the majority concluded Adams and Howard may pursue their wage claims. Adams, 48 N.E.3d at 9.2 Judge May dissented on this issue, concluding the trial court properly dismissed the wage claims because Indiana Code section 11-10-7-4 did not explicitly create a private right of action for offenders to pursue wage claims. Id. at 16, and 53 N.E.3d at 1184 (May, J., dissenting in part). The Meritor defendants seek transfer. We agree with Judge May. We grant transfer, adopt and incorporate by reference the dissent’s original and rehearing opinions addressing the wage claims, see Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(1), and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of these claims. We summarily affirm those parts of the Court of Appeals opinions addressing Adams’s other claims. See App. R. 58(A)(2). All Justices concur. 2 Effective May 9, 2013, the Legislature amended the relevant statutes to exempt criminal offenders in a DOC facility from the Wage Payment and Wage Claim Statutes. (See P.L. No. 223-2013, secs. 4, 5, and 6.) As the majority noted, this Legislative action has “foreclose[d] any similar claims in the future.” Adams, 53 N.E.3d at 1183. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.