Meyers v. Meyers
25 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1296, 2007 Ind. LEXIS 93, 861 N.E.2d 704 (2007)
Rule of Law:
The employment-at-will doctrine precludes an employee from pursuing a claim for wrongful discharge when the termination is in retaliation for the employee's exercise of a statutory right to receive unpaid wages.
Facts:
- Paul Meyers was employed by James and Eva Meyers, who were doing business as J. Meyers Construction, Inc.
- During the course of employment, the defendants withheld taxes from Paul's payroll checks but failed to deposit these funds with the Internal Revenue Service.
- The defendants also failed to pay Paul overtime wages as required by law.
- Paul complained directly to the defendants regarding their failure to pay overtime and their failure to deposit the withheld taxes.
- Following these complaints, the defendants terminated Paul's employment.
- Paul alleged that his discharge was a specific act of retaliation for his complaints about the wage and tax issues.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Meyers filed a complaint in the Hamilton Circuit Court (trial court) against James Meyers, Eva Meyers, and their corporation.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the retaliatory discharge count and to dismiss James and Eva Meyers as individual defendants.
- The Hamilton Circuit Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on both issues.
- Paul Meyers sought and obtained certification for an interlocutory appeal.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and reversed the trial court's dismissal, ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendants petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to transfer the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Indiana employment-at-will doctrine prohibit an employee from suing for wrongful discharge when they are terminated for complaining about unpaid wages and tax withholding failures?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dickson
No, the employment-at-will doctrine bars a wrongful discharge claim in these circumstances. The Court reasoned that Indiana adheres strictly to the employment-at-will doctrine, allowing termination for any reason—good, bad, or indifferent—unless a specific exception applies. While the Court has previously recognized rare exceptions (such as firing an employee for filing a worker's compensation claim or refusing to commit an illegal act), it declined to extend these exceptions to cases involving disputes over unpaid wages. Relying on the precedent set in Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Brant, the Court held that exercising a statutory right to wages does not immunize an employee from discharge. Regarding the separate procedural issue, the Court ruled that the individual defendants (James and Eva) could not be dismissed at this early stage because the plaintiff adequately alleged joint employment, and dismissal is only appropriate if the plaintiff cannot recover under any set of facts.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the employment-at-will doctrine in Indiana, signalling that the judiciary is unwilling to create new common law public policy exceptions. By distinguishing this case from Frampton (worker's compensation retaliation) and McClanahan (refusal to commit illegal acts), the Court clarified that asserting a statutory right to payment does not grant an employee job security or a tort cause of action for firing. The ruling effectively limits the remedies for employees in wage disputes to the recovery of the wages themselves, rather than additional damages for wrongful termination. It also clarifies the high burden required to dismiss individual defendants under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) when joint employment is pleaded.
