MEMORANDUM DECISION Jan 20 2016, 6:53 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES W. Edward Skees Rosemary L. Borek The Skees Law Office Stephenson Morow & Semler New Albany, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joshua Shepherd Thompson, January 20, 2016
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 10A05-1506-PL-652 v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court No. 4
City of Jeffersonville, Indiana The Honorable Larry W. Medlock, Special Judge and its Fire Department Merit Commission, Trial Court Cause No. 10C04-1408-PL-108 Appellees-Defendants.
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 1 of 7 Case Summary [1] Joshua Shepherd Thompson (“Thompson”), a firefighter in Jeffersonville (“the
City”), was determined ineligible for promotion after a change in policy by the
City’s Fire Department (“the Fire Department”) Merit Commission (“the
Commission”). He sought judicial review of this determination, and the trial
court dismissed his claim. He now appeals.
[2] We affirm.
Issues [3] Thompson presents several issues for our review, but we find one dispositive:
whether the trial court properly dismissed Thompson’s petition for judicial
review for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Facts and Procedural History [4] Thompson appeals the dismissal of his claim, and we accordingly take our
statement of facts from his complaint.
[5] Thompson was hired as a merit employee of the Fire Department in August
2010. In September 2011, the Commission’s rules were changed to require two
years of “on-line” service prior to employees being eligible for certain
promotions. (App’x at 8.) This policy change was not distributed to
department member as required under statute. See Ind. Code § 36-8-3.5-22.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 2 of 7 [6] In January 2012, Thompson took a position as a political appointee within the
Fire Department, but retained his length of service and merit status for
promotion consideration. In July 2012, Thompson applied to begin the merit
system promotion process, and in August 2012 the Commission and its
attorney notified Thompson that he was eligible to participate in the promotion
process.
[7] In October 2012, after written and oral testing, Thompson was ranked second
among seven Fire Department members eligible for promotion. The following
month, the firefighters’ union challenged Thompson’s eligibility for merit
promotion. In apparent response, the Commission removed Thompson from
the eligibility list for merit promotion. In January 2013, 1 Thompson appealed
this determination, and the Commission denied his appeal.
[8] In November 2013, the Commission adopted new eligibility rules. In April
2014, Thompson left his political appointment and returned to “on-line” service
with the Fire Department. He was at this time notified that he was not eligible
for promotion within the merit system until 2016.
[9] In June 2014, Thompson appealed this determination, seeking to be returned to
the merit status he held in October 2012. On August 14, 2014, the Commission
denied Thompson’s appeal.
1 Thompson’s complaint reads “January 2012.” The Commission appears to agree that Thompson intended January 2013, and we construe his complaint accordingly.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 3 of 7 [10] On August 29, 2014, Thompson filed his verified complaint, which challenged
the Commission’s decision and sought monetary damages and a permanent
injunction ordering the Commission to restore to Thompson his merit status as
of October 2012. Thompson’s suit named the City and the Commission as
defendants.
[11] On November 19, 2014, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss. In its
motion, the Commission argued that the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Thompson’s claim, that Thompson had belatedly sought
judicial review, and that Thompson had not named the proper defendants.
[12] A hearing on the motion to dismiss was conducted on April 24, 2015. The trial
court entered its order dismissing Thompson’s complaint on May 15, 2015.
[13] This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision [14] Thompson appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his verified petition for
judicial review under Trial Rule 12(B)(1).2 If the facts before the trial court are
not in dispute, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is purely one of law.
2 The trial court also dismissed Thompson’s petition for judicial review as untimely filed. Because we resolve the appeal on a jurisdictional basis, we do not reach the remainder of Thompson’s issues on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 4 of 7 GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind. 2001). We review such
decisions de novo. Id.
[15] At issue here is the proper interpretation of the judicial review provisions of
Indiana’s police and fire department merit system statute. See I.C. § 36-8-3.5-1
et seq. Courts receive subject-matter jurisdiction over a class of cases only
through the constitution or legislative enactment. In re Adoption of J.T.D., 21
N.E.3d 824, 828 (Ind. 2014). Where the language of a statute is unambiguous,
“‘[w]e may not expand or contract the meaning of a statute by reading into it
language which will, in the opinion of the Court, correct any supposed
omissions or defects.’” Williams v. State, 952 N.E.2d 317, 319-20 (Ind. Ct. App.
2011) (quoting Grody v. State, 257 Ind. 651, 659-60, 278 N.E.2d 280, 285
(1972)).
[16] In its motion to dismiss, the Commission argued that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction over the class of case at issue because the statute permits “appeal to
the circuit or superior court” by “[a] member who is aggrieved by a decision of
the commission to suspend him for a period greater than ten (10) calendar days,
demote him, or dismiss him.” I.C. § 36-8-3.5-18(a). The Commission argued
that the determination of eligibility for promotion does not fall within the three
enumerated bases—suspension for more than ten calendar days, demotion, or
dismissal—upon which an appeal may be premised. The trial court agreed,
concluding that “the law does not provide this court with subject-matter
jurisdiction over promotion eligibility requirements for police or fire
departments” and that “the situation would not qualify as an event of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 5 of 7 discipline, demotion, or dismissal.” (App’x at 7.) Thompson argues that
removal from the promotion eligibility list was a demotion, and thus the trial
court erred when it dismissed his petition for judicial review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Jan 20 2016, 6:53 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES W. Edward Skees Rosemary L. Borek The Skees Law Office Stephenson Morow & Semler New Albany, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joshua Shepherd Thompson, January 20, 2016
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 10A05-1506-PL-652 v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court No. 4
City of Jeffersonville, Indiana The Honorable Larry W. Medlock, Special Judge and its Fire Department Merit Commission, Trial Court Cause No. 10C04-1408-PL-108 Appellees-Defendants.
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 1 of 7 Case Summary [1] Joshua Shepherd Thompson (“Thompson”), a firefighter in Jeffersonville (“the
City”), was determined ineligible for promotion after a change in policy by the
City’s Fire Department (“the Fire Department”) Merit Commission (“the
Commission”). He sought judicial review of this determination, and the trial
court dismissed his claim. He now appeals.
[2] We affirm.
Issues [3] Thompson presents several issues for our review, but we find one dispositive:
whether the trial court properly dismissed Thompson’s petition for judicial
review for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Facts and Procedural History [4] Thompson appeals the dismissal of his claim, and we accordingly take our
statement of facts from his complaint.
[5] Thompson was hired as a merit employee of the Fire Department in August
2010. In September 2011, the Commission’s rules were changed to require two
years of “on-line” service prior to employees being eligible for certain
promotions. (App’x at 8.) This policy change was not distributed to
department member as required under statute. See Ind. Code § 36-8-3.5-22.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 2 of 7 [6] In January 2012, Thompson took a position as a political appointee within the
Fire Department, but retained his length of service and merit status for
promotion consideration. In July 2012, Thompson applied to begin the merit
system promotion process, and in August 2012 the Commission and its
attorney notified Thompson that he was eligible to participate in the promotion
process.
[7] In October 2012, after written and oral testing, Thompson was ranked second
among seven Fire Department members eligible for promotion. The following
month, the firefighters’ union challenged Thompson’s eligibility for merit
promotion. In apparent response, the Commission removed Thompson from
the eligibility list for merit promotion. In January 2013, 1 Thompson appealed
this determination, and the Commission denied his appeal.
[8] In November 2013, the Commission adopted new eligibility rules. In April
2014, Thompson left his political appointment and returned to “on-line” service
with the Fire Department. He was at this time notified that he was not eligible
for promotion within the merit system until 2016.
[9] In June 2014, Thompson appealed this determination, seeking to be returned to
the merit status he held in October 2012. On August 14, 2014, the Commission
denied Thompson’s appeal.
1 Thompson’s complaint reads “January 2012.” The Commission appears to agree that Thompson intended January 2013, and we construe his complaint accordingly.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 3 of 7 [10] On August 29, 2014, Thompson filed his verified complaint, which challenged
the Commission’s decision and sought monetary damages and a permanent
injunction ordering the Commission to restore to Thompson his merit status as
of October 2012. Thompson’s suit named the City and the Commission as
defendants.
[11] On November 19, 2014, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss. In its
motion, the Commission argued that the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Thompson’s claim, that Thompson had belatedly sought
judicial review, and that Thompson had not named the proper defendants.
[12] A hearing on the motion to dismiss was conducted on April 24, 2015. The trial
court entered its order dismissing Thompson’s complaint on May 15, 2015.
[13] This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision [14] Thompson appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his verified petition for
judicial review under Trial Rule 12(B)(1).2 If the facts before the trial court are
not in dispute, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is purely one of law.
2 The trial court also dismissed Thompson’s petition for judicial review as untimely filed. Because we resolve the appeal on a jurisdictional basis, we do not reach the remainder of Thompson’s issues on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 4 of 7 GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind. 2001). We review such
decisions de novo. Id.
[15] At issue here is the proper interpretation of the judicial review provisions of
Indiana’s police and fire department merit system statute. See I.C. § 36-8-3.5-1
et seq. Courts receive subject-matter jurisdiction over a class of cases only
through the constitution or legislative enactment. In re Adoption of J.T.D., 21
N.E.3d 824, 828 (Ind. 2014). Where the language of a statute is unambiguous,
“‘[w]e may not expand or contract the meaning of a statute by reading into it
language which will, in the opinion of the Court, correct any supposed
omissions or defects.’” Williams v. State, 952 N.E.2d 317, 319-20 (Ind. Ct. App.
2011) (quoting Grody v. State, 257 Ind. 651, 659-60, 278 N.E.2d 280, 285
(1972)).
[16] In its motion to dismiss, the Commission argued that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction over the class of case at issue because the statute permits “appeal to
the circuit or superior court” by “[a] member who is aggrieved by a decision of
the commission to suspend him for a period greater than ten (10) calendar days,
demote him, or dismiss him.” I.C. § 36-8-3.5-18(a). The Commission argued
that the determination of eligibility for promotion does not fall within the three
enumerated bases—suspension for more than ten calendar days, demotion, or
dismissal—upon which an appeal may be premised. The trial court agreed,
concluding that “the law does not provide this court with subject-matter
jurisdiction over promotion eligibility requirements for police or fire
departments” and that “the situation would not qualify as an event of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 5 of 7 discipline, demotion, or dismissal.” (App’x at 7.) Thompson argues that
removal from the promotion eligibility list was a demotion, and thus the trial
court erred when it dismissed his petition for judicial review.
[17] We think the trial court was correct in its determination that removal from the
promotion eligibility list was not disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal
from employment within the meaning of Section 36-8-3.5-18. The statute’s
terms relate to employment decisions that directly affect the pay and work
status of an employee, and the scope of appealable disciplinary actions is
narrower than the overall scope of actions a merit commission may take. See
I.C. § 36-8-3.5-17(a) (providing that a merit commission may suspend with or
without pay, demote, or dismiss an employee). Demotion and promotion are
commonly understood to mean increase or reduction in position, that is,
relegation to a subordinate or superordinate rank. Thompson was not demoted
in rank, and the trial court was thus without statutory authority to hear his
appeal. Thus, the court was without subject-matter jurisdiction to review the
Commission’s decision and properly dismissed his appeal.
[18] In his briefs, Thompson argues that this result would render the police and fire
merit system statutes unenforceable. In particular, Thompson directs us to his
allegation in the verified petition that the Commission did not properly
distribute the 2011 changes to the promotion eligibility policies, and argues that
without jurisdiction over this class of case the statutes cannot be properly
enforced. Yet to the extent his argument is with the language and scope of a
legislative enactment, his complaint is properly directed toward the Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 6 of 7 General Assembly, which enacted the statute that defines the scope of judicial
review of merit board decisions. See In re Adoption of J.T.D., 21 N.E.3d at 828;
Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321-22 (Ind. 1996) (recognizing the
legislature’s role in defining the public policy of the state, and expressing
caution with respect to potential violations of the separation of powers).
Further, if Thompson had any constitutional due-process claims that could
have served as means to enforce statutory provisions concerning notification of
policy changes, we note that he failed to pursue such a claim and has made no
cognizable Indiana constitutional claim.3
[19] Having found no error in the trial court’s decision that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over Thompson’s claim, we affirm the order of dismissal.
[20] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
3 On October 21, 2014, Thompson filed a stipulation with the trial court that he was not asserting any federal constitutional claims. (App’x at 4.) Thompson’s briefs before this Court make a single reference to the Indiana Constitution, with no subsequent argument sounding in constitutional doctrine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A05-1506-PL-652 | January 20, 2016 Page 7 of 7