Dyer, IN
Child custody Lawyer at Dyer, IN
Practice Areas: Child Custody, Child Support ... +13 more
OUTCOME: Affirmed
Defended a challenge by DCS as to jurisdiction of Juvenile Court to hear adoptions. Won on trial level and affirmed by Appellate Court. Decision voided approximately 2000 adoption s in Lake County.
OUTCOME: Affirmed
Notice requirements sufficient to enforce an injunctin on a 3d party.
OUTCOME: affirmed on appeal
Paternity case finding that childcare costs for advancing education were includable in the child support worksheet calculations.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment affirmed
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: LARRY D. STASSIN MICHAEL W. BOSCH Hammond, Indiana Hammond, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JOSEPH PEDRAZA; ) HOWARD VANSELOW ... ; and ) NICK DVORSCAK, ) ) Appellants-Defendants, ) ) vs. ) No. 45A03-0005-CV-188 ) CITY OF EAST CHICAGO; ) ROBERT A. PATRICK, Mayor; ) CITY OF EAST CHICAGO ) FIRE DEPARTMENT; and ) JAMES DAWSON, Fire Chief, ) ) Appellees-Plaintiffs. ) APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable James J. Richards, Judge Cause No. 45D05-9902-CP-174 APRIL 9, 2001 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION RATLIFF, Senior Judge STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiffs-Appellants Joseph Pedraza, Howard Vanselow, and Nick Dvorscak (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees City of East Chicago, Robert A. Pastrick, Mayor, City of East Chicago Fire Department, and James Dawson, Fire Chief (collectively, “Appellees”). We affirm. ISSUE We restate the issues presented by Appellants as follows: I. Whether the Indiana Tort Claims Act applies to this lawsuit and whether the Mayor and Fire Chief are immune from this lawsuit. II. Whether the trial court correctly found that there was no genuine issue of material fact and appropriately issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees regarding the appropriateness of the City of East Chicago’s decision to pay fire department employees who do different kinds of work at different rates, to make overtime available to some employees and not others, and to require some employees to be on call without providing extra compensation for that duty. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The amended complaint alleges that Appellants are all East Chicago staff firefighters employed by the East Chicago Fire Department. The East Chicago Fire Department divides its firefighters into two categories, line firefighters and staff firefighters. Line firefighters work a schedule of twenty-four hours on duty followed by forty-eight hours off-duty. The staff firefighters, who handle day-to-day administrative chores, work Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The amended complaint additionally alleges that line firefighters receive forty-five vacation days each year and staff firefighters receive thirty-five vacation days each year. Line firefighters are allowed to work overtime according to a seniority list, while staff firefighters’ names are not placed on that list. Furthermore, staff firefighters receive no compensation for being on call, while staff firefighters within the Inspection Bureau receive an additional $7,000.00 in compensation for both being on call and actual service when called in while on call. Appellants filed a complaint against Appellees on February 1, 1999, alleging that the differences in vacation time, overtime availability, and differences in on-call compensation between staff firefighters in the Fire Department and Inspection Bureau were arbitrary, discriminatory, and not provided for by law. On April 23, 1999, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) & (6).
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
