less..
In this case, Quimby left her employment with Becovic and made an application for a wage claim with the Indiana Department of Labor. Immediately above her signature, the form stated, "Pursuant to IC 22-2-9-5, I hereby assign to the Commissioner of Labor all my rights, title and interest in and to the above certified claim for processing in accordance with the provisions of IC 22-2-9-1, et seq." Quimby claimed Becovic owed her $787.31 for hours she worked but for which she was not paid, and for vacation time she had accrued. The DOL investigated the claim and determined certain deductions were not properly made, and it directed Becovic to pay Quimby $590.39. Becovic sent Quimby a check for that amount dated April 20, 2009, and she cashed it.

One week after Becovic sent the check to Quimby, the DOL wrote Quimby saying, "Our office has attempted to resolve the above-cited wage claim administratively without success," and "suggest[ing] that [Quimby] file suit through the appropriate court." She filed a claim under the Wage Payment Statute in Superior Court approximately two weeks after the DOL suggested she do so. Upon motion, the trial court dismissed that claim.

On appeal, the Court noted that the Wage Claim Statute requires an administrative process to obtain relief and the Wage Payment Statute requires a judicial process to obtain relief. Quimby's claim was under the Wage Payment Statute, not the Wage Claim Statute, and Quimby "should have brought her claim in court under the Wage Payment statute." Nevertheless, she could not do so now because she had assigned her claim to the DOL. In a footnote, the Court stated that Quimby could not bring the second action, pursuant to the Wage Payment statute, because it asserts claims she had not presented to the DOL, as doing do would be claims-splitting.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here