ICRC Orders Index List
Category Quick Search
| Category | Docket Number | Complainant Last Name | Respondent Last Name | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damages Back Pay | 03243 | Gerardot and Burton | Sutherland Lumber Company | Complainants who were unlawfully terminated and who fully mitigated their damages were entitled to back pay from the date of their termination to the date of their next employment. Gerardot and Burton v. Sutherland Lumber Company, DOCKET NOS. 03243 and 03348 (1976); reversed on other grounds, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Sutherland Lumber , 394 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. App. 1979). |
| Damages Back Pay | 01575 | Lewis | Salk | Complainant was awarded back pay for 17 weeks, despite a much longer period of unemployment, because there was not substantial evidence of probative value that she sought alternative employment or that any additional losses were the result of any discrimination by Respondents. , DOCKET NO. 01575 (1978) |
| Damages Back Pay | EMra77120799 | Mosley | RES Management Corp. | A complainant who, had he been hired, would have received a rent free apartment and who, during the relevant time, had a similar position at another complex, had not proven any losses because he had not proven the value of the apartment he did receive. , DOCKET NO. EMra77120799 (1979). |
| Damages Back Pay | 05131 | Brown | Tippecanoe School Corp. | A complainant who, after his discharge from a job he had held while a full time student, was not entitled to back pay after he resigned a subsequent job for personal reasons and because of interference with school. , DOCKET NO. 05131 (1980). |
| Damages Back Pay | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun GMC, Inc | Lost commissions may not be awarded where the fact of their existence is speculative, but uncertainty as to amount is no bar and doubts are to be resolved against the wrongdoer. DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Damages Back Pay | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | The Commission reduced lost commissions, calculating Complainant's sales based on his sales at a later, similar, job. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Damages Back Pay | EMse80030289 | Butters | C. K. Restaurants, Inc | Complainant’s lost wages resulting from an involuntary, unpaid pregnancy leave - $1,170.00 – were restored. Inc., DOCKET NO. EMse80030289 (1981). |
| Damages Emotional Distress | 1286 | Mathis | Eastside Dolphin Club | Complainants who were excluded from membership because of race were entitled to $250.00 in damages for emotional distress. , DOCKET NO. 1286 (1973). |
| Damages Emotional Distress | 3141 | Jackson | Holman | One Thousand Dollars was recoverable as compensable racial insult. , DOCKET NO. 3141 (1975); reversed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Holman, 177 Ind. App. 648, 380 N.E.2d 1281 (1978); but see Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Alder, 714 N.E.2d 632 (Ind. 1999). |
| Damages Emotional Distress | PAra77030157 | Buford | Lucifer's | It was appropriate to award $500 in compensatory damages for embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, and inconvenience. , DOCKET NO. PAra77030157 (1978). |
| Damages Emotional Distress | PAra79020148 | Wilson | Curl | A complainant excluded from a discotheque was entitled to $250.00 in damages for loss of peace of mind. , DOCKET NO. PAra79020148 (1981). |
| Damages Out of Pocket Expenses | 1286 | Mathis | Eastside Dolphin Club | Application fees that were not refunded when the application was denied because of race were recoverable. , Inc., DOCKET NO. 1286 (1973). |
| Damages Out of Pocket Expenses | 3141 | Jackson | Holman | A security deposit that was not refunded because of race was recoverable. , DOCKET NO. 3141 (1975); reversed on other grounds, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Holman, 177 Ind. App. 648, 380 N.E.2d 1281 (1978). |
| Damages Out of Pocket Expenses | HOra77020127 | Lindsey | Ford | Damages for an unlawful refusal to rent a furnished room included the difference in rent, the installation cost for a telephone, depreciation of furniture for the period of time until Complainant declined the landlord’s later offer to move into the room, totaling $276.00. , DOCKET NO. HOra77020127 (1980). |
| Damages Out of Pocket Expenses | PAra79020148 | Wilson | Curl | Extra gasoline expenses resulting from racially discriminatory exclusion from a discotheque were compensable. , DOCKET NO. PAra79020148 (1981). |
| Discrimination Race | 1286 | Mathis | Eastside Dolphin Club | It is racial discrimination to exclude a member of a club from the premises because of the race of the member’s guest. , DOCKET NO. 1286 (1973). |
| Discrimination Race | 1286 | Mathis | Eastside Dolphin Club | It is racial discrimination for a club to deny a longtime member’s application for renewal because of the race of a guest of the member. , DOCKET NO. 1286 (1973). |
| Discrimination Race | 01174 | Kinchloe | Miller's Barber Shop | Lack of skill is not a defense to a charge that a barber shop refused to cut a Black man’s hair. DOCKET NO. 01174 (1974). |
| Discrimination Race | 1281 | Jackson | Holman | It was unlawful to refuse to return a security deposit because of race. , DOCKET NO. 3141 (1975); reversed on other grounds, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Holman, 177 Ind. App. 648, 380 N.E.2d 1281 (1978). |
| Discrimination Race | 3141 | Jackson | Holman | It was unlawful to refuse to renew a lease because of race. , DOCKET NO. 3141 (1975); reversed on other grounds, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Holman, 177 Ind. App. 648, 380 N.E.2d 1281 (1978). |
| Discrimination Race | 02854 | Luddington | Indiana Bell Telephone Company | An employer that changed the shifts available for bidding from what those shifts had been the previous month committed unlawful racial discrimination, even though there was no evidence that the change was racially motivated, because the effect was to deprive a Black employee of premium pay. , DOCKET NO. 02854 (1977); reversed, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated v. Boyd, 421 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. App. 1981). |
| Discrimination Race | 01575 | Lewis | Salk | Respondents’ failure to employ Complainant after offering her employment was a discriminatory practice in violation of the Indiana Civil Rights Law. , DOCKET NO. 01575 (1978). |
| Discrimination Race | PAra770300157 | Buford | Lucifer's | A discotheque that used different standards for the admission of Blacks than it used for Whites committed an unlawful discriminatory practice. , DOCKET NO. PAra77030157 (1978). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra77120799 | Mosley | RES Management Corp | Complainant, a Deputy Sheriff, proved that the reason offered for his rejection for a position at an apartment complex – that Respondent thought it should hire an Indiana State Trooper or an Indianapolis Police Officer - was a pretext for racial discrimination by proving that the person hired was a Deputy Sheriff of a different race., DOCKET NO. EMra77120799 (1979). |
| Discrimination Race | 06652 | Hinton | Bethlehem Steel Corporation | An employer that suspended with intent to discharge, and eventually discharged, both participants in a fight – one Black and one White – because it could not determine which participant in the fight was the instigator did not commit unlawful race discrimination despite Complainant’s claim that the White employee’s version of the incident was inherently incredible. , et. al., DOCKET NO. 06652 (1979). |
| Discrimination Race | 06652 | Hinton | Bethlehem Steel Corporation | A local union did not commit unlawful race discrimination when it withdrew a grievance that it had filed on behalf of a Black employee who was one of two participants in a fight, the other being a White employee, because the local union could not determine which participant in the fight was the instigator despite Complainant’s claim that the White employee’s version of the incident was inherently incredible. , et. al., DOCKET NO. 06652 (1979). |
| Discrimination Race | 06872 | Epperson | Jay's Foods, Inc | Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof that the employer had committed a “discriminatory practice” by treating him differently than White driver-salesman trainees, when he failed to produce evidence of such disparate treatment. ., DOCKET NO. 06872 (1979). |
| Discrimination Race | 06872 | Epperson | Jay's Foods, Inc | Complainant failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination when he failed to prove that he was adequately performing the job of driver-salesman trainee. , DOCKET NO. 06872 (1979). |
| Discrimination Race | 06872 | Epperson | Jay's Foods, Inc | Even if a prima facie case had been made, it was rebutted when the employer articulated the non-discriminatory reasons of sales slip errors and driving difficulties and Complainant failed to prove them pretextual. , DOCKET NO. 06872 (1979). |
| Discrimination Race | 08318 | Greathouse | Stokely Van Camp, Inc | The allocation of proof is: (1) Complainant may establish a prima facie case by proving that she is black, that she was able to perform the job satisfactorily, that she was nevertheless terminated, and that the job thereafter remained open to individuals of her qualifications; (2) if Complainant carries that burden, Respondent may rebut that case by showing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge; (3) upon such a rebuttal, Complainant can prevail only by proving that that Respondent’s stated reason was merely a pretext for a racially motivated discharge. , Inc., DOCKET NO. 08318 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 08318 | Greathouse | Stokely Van Camp, Inc | In view of her admitted shortcomings with the performance of significant elements of her job, Complainant did not satisfy her initial burden of proving that she was capable of performing the duties of the job of security guard in a satisfactory manner. ., DOCKET NO. 08318 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 08318 | Greathouse | Stokely Van Camp, Inc | Even had Complainant carried her burden of establishing a prima facie case, evidence was introduced establishing that Complainant knowingly violated Respondent’s rules and orally and physically assaulted and battered her supervisor and that Respondent had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge – insubordination. , DOCKET NO. 08318 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 08318 | Greathouse | Stokely Van Camp, Inc | Complainant’s testimony regarding pretext was not credible in view of multiple, material contradictions and omissions, the divergence in her testimony from documentary evidence and her prior deposition testimony, her demeanor on the witness stand,, and the inherent implausibility of her account. , DOCKET NO. 08318 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 05131 | Brown | Tippecanoe School Corp | Complainant presented a prima facie case by proving that (a) he was a member of a protected class (Black); (b) he was adequately performing his job; (c) he was discharged; and (d) his position was not eliminated but was filled by a White man. , DOCKET NO. 05131 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 05131 | Brown | Tippecanoe School Corp | The employer produced evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging Complainant – his absence on a specific day without prior notice and his erratic work schedule the prior week. , DOCKET NO. 05131 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 05131 | Brown | Tippecanoe School Corp | Respondent’s asserted reason for discharging Complainant was found to be a pretext for unlawful racial discrimination because: (a) Complainant did notify Respondent of his absence prior to his scheduled starting time; (b) Respondent failed to prove that Complainant’s work schedule the prior week was erratic other than one day which was found to be excused: (c)Complainant’s working schedule starting the day after his discharge would have been 3 to 11 and his attendance had never been a problem on that schedule; and (d) White employees who had notified Respondent of their absence had not been discharged as a result of the absence. , DOCKET NO. 05131 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 06688 | Joyner | Howard Community Hospital | An employer did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice based on race or sex by dividing the Department of Environmental Services, of which she had been the director, and assigning her to be Laundry Manager, when there were legitimate reasons for the reorganization, the employer had reorganized before, and Complainant’s pay and status were unaffected. , DOCKET NO. 06688 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 02704 | Blackmon | State of Indiana Division of Personnel and Indiana Department of Correction | Complainant applied for a transfer to a position as a Parole Investigator, during which he was told that the job would be dangerous for a Black person because he would have to deal with people in small southern communities. It was found that he would not have been selected even in the absence of that consideration because his supervisor had recommended against selecting Complainant because Complainant had demonstrated an inability to get along with, and cooperate with, people. , DOCKET NO. 02704 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | HOra77020127 | Lindsey | Ford | A landlord who told a potential tenant she would not rent to him after asking him his race, and explained that one of her current tenants was a “redneck” who carried a knife or machete committed unlawful racial discrimination. , DOCKET NO. HOra77020127 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 06982 | Dieckmann | Princeton Industries Corp. | The employer was found not to have terminated Complainant because of her relationship with a Black man because the employer introduced evidence of a legitimate business reason for its decision that was not shown to be a pretext for unlawful discrimination. , DOCKET NO. 06982 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc., | Whether other employees, white or black, were discharged for chronic tardiness had no bearing on whether Complainant was, in fact, chronically tardy. DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980) |
| Discrimination Race | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc., | Whether other employees, white or black, were discharged for violating the management assistance policy had no bearing on whether Complainant had, in fact, violated that policy. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc., | Whether other employees, white or black, were discharged for lack of productivity had no bearing on whether Complainant’s productivity was, in fact, acceptable. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc., | Complainant’s employment history before and after his tenure with Respondent was of no relevance to determining why he was discharged by Respondent. DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Discrimination Race | 04593 | Smith | City of Muncie | Respondent’s denial of Complainant’s application for membership in the Pension Fund based upon a psychiatric report was unlawful because Respondent evaluated similarly situated White applicants more favorably. , DOCKET NO. 04593 (1980); reversed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. City of Muncie, 459 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. App. 1984). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra77120900 | Minor | Zimmer Paper Products | Complainant was discharged for excessive absenteeism and tardiness and poor workmanship. It was found that Complainant’s absenteeism and tardiness were substantially worse than other employees in his classification and thus found that his discharge had not been proven to be due to racial discrimination. DOCKET NO. EMra77120900 (1981). |
| Discrimination Race | PAra79020148 | Wilson | Curl | A security company that communicated and enforced a discotheque’s “no Blacks admitted” policy was liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice. , DOCKET NO. PAra79020148 (1981). |
| Discrimination Race | 04642(B) and 04645(B) | Trice and Barbour | Chrysler Corporation | Complainants were among the most prominent of a group of Black employees who, in protest of another Black employee’s discharge, kicked open the door to the Production office, made threatening comments, and refused to leave when so directed. They were discharged, but those discharges were later reduced to lengthy suspensions in arbitration. The Commission ruled: 1. Complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because they failed to show that similarly situated White employees received more favorable treatment. 2. The employer articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the disciplinary action taken. 3. Complainants failed to demonstrate that the articulated reason was a pretext for unlawful race discrimination. 4. Complainants failed to demonstrate a “retaliatory motive or intent” for their discipline. 5. Though there was some evidence that the union may have failed to properly represent its Black members prior to this incident, the Director had found No Probable Cause as against the union; therefore, no order or conclusions could be made as to the union. DOCKET NOS. 04642(B) and 04645(B) (1981). |
| Discrimination Race | 08390 | Curler | City of Fort Wayne | Neither the failure of the City to hire Complainant in the kennel worker position for which he bid nor the failure of the City to place Complainant in the position of relief utility worker were the result of discrimination because of race. , DOCKET NO. 08390 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 08465 | Sample | International Harvester | Respondent did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice in regard to Complainant’s pay because (1) it did not fail to pay him any amounts owed at the time owed; and (2) there was no evidence that the perceived shortages, or the methods Respondent used to investigate the claimed shortages were affected by race. ., DOCKET NO. 08465 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 08465 | Sample | International Harvester Co | Complainant did not rebut the evidence introduced by Respondent showing that his discharge was for a legitimate business reason – insubordination. ., DOCKET NO. 08465 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 08465 | Sample | International Harvester Co | Respondent did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice in regard to Complainant’s pay because (1) it did not fail to pay him any amounts owed at the time owed; and (2) there was no evidence that the perceived shortages, or the methods Respondent used to investigate the claimed shortages were affected by race. DOCKET NO. 08465 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 08465 | Sample | International Harvester Co | Complainant did not rebut the evidence introduced by Respondent showing that his discharge was for a legitimate business reason – insubordination. , DOCKET NO. 08465 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 08465 | Sample | International Harvester Co | Complainant did not rebut the evidence introduced by Respondent showing that its refusal to reinstate him was for a legitimate business reason – threatening physical violence against employees of Respondent on more than one occasion. DOCKET NO. 08465 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra78010067 | Ryle | City of Indianapolis, Department of Transporation | Complainant did not prove that the reasons offered by Respondent were pretexts for racial discrimination, either by showing them to be unworthy of credence, by showing that any similarly situated White employee was treated more favorably, or otherwise. , DOCKET NO. EMra78010067 (1983). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra78010067 | Ryle | City of Indianapolis, Department of Transportation | Complainant did not prove that he was harassed by his supervisor because of race. DOCKET NO. EMra78010067 (1983). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra80050656 | West | Franklin Community School Corporation | Complainant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason offered by Respondent for not selecting her for a position was a pretext for racial discrimination. DOCKET NO. EMra80050656 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 07184 | Kent | Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation | Complainant did not establish that her discharge was the result of the closer monitoring to which she was subjected. , DOCKET NO. 07184 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 07184 | Kent | Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation | In light of the nature and number of Complainant’s job performance problems, Respondent would have discovered them and discharged her even if it had not monitored her more closely. , DOCKET NO. 07184 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 07184 | Kent | Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation | There was no evidence that any White employee was retained who had any or all of the job performance problems that Complainant had. , DOCKET NO. 07184 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | 07184 | Kent | Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation | Complainant failed to prove that her discharge was caused by race. , DOCKET NO. 07184 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | PAra81050452 | Fisher | Indianapolis Public Transporation Corp. | Complainant failed to meet her burden of proving that she was evicted from a city bus because of race. DOCKET NO. PAra81050452 (1982). |
| Discrimination Race | EMra81020200 | Stevens | Lincoln Manufacturing Company, Inc | Despite the admission of considerable evidence about the discipline of both Black and White employees, Complainant did not demonstrate that the reasons offered by the employer were pretexts for racial discrimination, either by showing them to be unworthy of credence or by showing that any similarly situated White employee was treated more favorably. DOCKET NO. EMra81020200 (1982) |
| Discrimination Sex | 03243 | Gerardot and Burton | Sutherland Lumber | It was unlawful sex discrimination to terminate male employees who refused to comply with the Company’s rule prohibiting mustaches. Gerardot and Burton v. Sutherland Lumber Company, DOCKET NOS. 03243 and 03348 (1976); reversed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Sutherland Lumber, 394 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. App. 1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | 06874 | Cord | Switzerland County School Corporation | A curriculum coordinator who worked closely with elementary school principals and was transferred to a position as a classroom teacher and acting principal because she and one of those principals were in constant conflict was not transferred because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 06874 (1977). |
| Discrimination Sex | 07646 | Levie | LaFollette | A doctor’s office that billed married couples by billing the husband unless a request was made to bill the wife did not thereby commit unlawful sex discrimination because the disparity in opportunity was not substantially unequal. , DOCKET NO. 07646 (1977). |
| Discrimination Sex | 05290 | Williams | Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation | A complainant was discriminated against on the basis of her sex with regard to her training and testing as a Crane Operator when (1) she was denied an opportunity for additional training applied to males under a Company policy allowing them to “brush up on their weak points” before being retested, and (2) she was told by her supervisor that she had had enough training despite not having that opportunity. , Docket No. 05290 (1978); affirmed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation, 450 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. App. 1983). |
| Discrimination Sex | 03149 | Bates | Board of Trustees for Vincennes University | Complainant was one of two female employees working in an office about which customer complaints had been made. She failed to demonstrate that Respondent’s decision to terminate her as a result of those complaints occurred because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 03149 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer’s re-assignment of Complainant’s job responsibilities was not based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer’s discharge of Complainant was not based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer’s failure to transfer Complainant to another position rather than discharging her was not based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer’s failure to provide Complainant with training for a position other than Traffic Clerk, Senior was not based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer did not deny Complainant equal pay for work she performed that was equal or comparable to work performed by male employees or otherwise determine her compensation based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful sex discrimination in termination because there is no evidence that the termination denied her an equal employment opportunity and there was no evidence of a similarly situated employee of the opposite sex. , DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | Complainant failed to establish of unlawful sex discrimination concerning her failure to be hired as a spa technician in the employer’s men’s division because she did not request that job and admitted that she was not qualified to perform all of its duties. ., DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | Complainant did not offer any evidence to show that the employer’s actions or reasons for its actions were mere pretexts for sex discrimination. , DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | The employer was under no legal duty to retain the unique job position of receptionist-exercise helper for Complainant. , Inc., DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | There is no legal duty to custom tailor a job or make a special unnecessary job for a person because of his or her sex. , DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | Complainant was not denied equal opportunities to employment because of her sex. The employer offered her a job of spa technician in the ladies’ division with the same duties, compensation, hours, working facilities, and opportunity for advancement as that of a spa technician in the men’s division., DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | PAse77050257 | Powell | Red's Lounge | When a public accommodation adopts and enforces a policy requiring males, but not females, to remove their hats for the reason that it is a way to control the clientele and helped to identify the customers when there is no reason why imposing a similar requirement on females would adversely affect control of clientele or identification of customers, it has committed a “discriminatory practice” by denying equal opportunities because of sex, noting that this was not a case where the disparate requirements were adopted and/or enforced because it is traditional etiquette for males, but not females, to remove their hats indoors. , et. al. DOCKET NO. Pase77050257 (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | 07786 | Duncan | Indiana State Highway Commission | The employer committed an unlawful discriminatory practice in that it excluded Complainant from equal opportunities because of sex by treating male and female employees in a non-uniform manner during the selection and interviewing process. , DOCKET NO. 07786 (1979), affirmed, Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission, 424 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. App. 1981). |
| Discrimination Sex | 07786 | Duncan | Indiana State Highway Commission | The employer committed a discriminatory practice in that Complainant showed: (1) she is female; (2) she applied and was qualified for a position for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) despite her qualifications, she was rejected for the position; (4) a less qualified male was selected for the position: and (5) the employer’s stated reasons for the interviews given male applicants but not female applicants and for selecting a male are in fact pretextual. , DOCKET NO. 07786 (1979), affirmed, Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission, 424 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. App. 1981). |
| Discrimination Sex | 05224A | Williams | Henry County Board of Health | The employer committed a discriminatory practice in that Complainant showed (1) she is female; (2) she applied and was considered for a position for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) she was qualified for the position; (4) despite her qualifications, she was rejected for the position; (5) a less qualified male was selected for the position; and the employer’s stated reasons for selecting the male over Complainant are in fact pretextual. , DOCKET NO. 05224A (1979). |
| Discrimination Sex | 07493 | Thomas | Northwest Hendricks School Corp | It is a “discriminatory practice” to pay a female employee, because of her sex, less than a male employee when those employees perform jobs that are substantially equivalent in terms of skill, effort, and responsibility. ., DOCKET NO. 07493 (1980). |
| Discrimination Sex | 05055 | Ryerson | Indiana Department of Public Welfare | By never granting maternity leave or sick leave without pay, Respondent treated pregnancy disabilities equally with other medical disabilities. , DOCKET NO. 05055 (1980). |
| Discrimination Sex | 05055 | Ryerson | Indiana Department of Public Welfare | The state Personnel department committed an unlawful discriminatory practice by maintaining a system excluding female employees from equal opportunities because of sex by promulgating and administering rules making paid sick leave unavailable to employees disabled by pregnancy. , DOCKET NO. 05055 (1980). |
| Discrimination Sex | 08123 | Laczi | Schereville Police Department | A police department was found to have committed an unlawful discriminatory practice when the chief discouraged Complainant from pursuing her application because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 08123 (1980). |
| Discrimination Sex | 08123 | Laczi | Schererville Police Department | Complainant was not denied a position because of sex because (1) 2 of the officers hired were experienced dog handlers (which the department needed because it had 2 trained dogs and no trained dog handlers) which Complainant was not and (2) the other officer hired had, unlike Complainant, already graduated from the Law Enforcement Academy, allowing him to be assigned to patrol at least 8 weeks earlier than Complainant. , DOCKET NO. 08123 (1980). |
| Discrimination Sex | 06688 | Joyner | Howard Community Hospital Kokomo, IN | An employer did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice based on race or sex by dividing the Department of Environmental Services, of which she had been the director, and assigning her to be Laundry Manager, when there were legitimate reasons for the reorganization, the employer had reorganized before, and Complainant’s pay and status were unaffected. DOCKET NO. 06688 (1980). |
| Discrimination Sex | 08294 | Sagers | Bedford Glass and Auto Parts | Termination of an employee who failed to comply with a grooming standard prohibiting beards was not unlawful sex discrimination. DOCKET NO. 08294 (1980). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse79070782 | Flanagan | Indiana Veterans Home | The employer did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice when it failed to reemploy Complainant because of his prior work record and relative lack of competitive qualifications. , DOCKET NO. EMse79070782 (1981). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse80030289 | Butters | C.K. Restaurants, Inc., | Placing a female on involuntary unpaid pregnancy leave when she was medically able to continue her job duties in a satisfactory fashion was an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon sex. , DOCKET NO. EMse80030289 (1981). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMra80030375 | Hooten | Ameerican diversified Foods, Inc. d/b/a Arby's | The Director’s Finding found that there was no probable cause to believe that Complainant’s termination was in violation of the Indiana Civil Rights Law and notified her that she could request reconsideration. She did not. The finding also found that there was probable cause as to Complainant’s allegation of sexual harassment. The Commission ruled that Complainant’s termination was not properly before it, because of Complainant’s failure to timely appeal the Director’s finding and that, otherwise, Complainant (who introduced no evidence) had failed to prove a violation. DOCKET NO. EMra80030375 (1981). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMra80030375 | Ballard | Kennecott Corporation | The males treated more favorably than Complainant were treated that way because, unlike Complainant, they had completed their probationary period before the institution of a “rule of thumb” concerning what constituted excessive absenteeism and tardiness for a probationary employee. , DOCKET NO. EMse79070767 (1982) |
| Discrimination Sex | EMra80030375 | Ballard | Kennecott Corporation | The males treated more favorably than Complainant were treated that way because, unlike Complainant, they had completed their probationary period before the institution of a “rule of thumb” concerning what constituted excessive absenteeism and tardiness for a probationary employee. , DOCKET NO. EMse79070767 (1982) |
| Discrimination Sex | 04481 | Hartwell | Indiana University | The difference between the salaries of Complainant and her successor was because of the additional duties, skill and responsibility required and not because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 04481 (1982). |
| Discrimination Sex | 04481 | Hartwell | Indiana University | The restructuring of Complainant’s position after she resigned was not done because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 04481 (1982). |
| Discrimination Sex | 04481 | Hartwell | Indiana University | Respondent did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice when it paid Complainant’s male successor more than it had paid Complainant because of the additional duties, skill and responsibility required and not because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 04481 (1982). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse77110749 | Southern | Hall-Hottel Co., Inc | Complainant did not prove that the asserted reason for her termination ..... a prolonged absence ..... was a pretext for sex discrimination. The comparator worked in a different department, was supervised by a different supervisor, and was 1 of 6 employees in that department while Complainant was 1 of 3 employees in the office. Further, sexual segregation between the maintenance department and the office, the former being male and the latter being female, did not tend to show that a termination from one of those departments was based upon sex. S DOCKET NO. EMse77110749 (1982). |
| Discrimination Sex | Ross | Ross | W. R. Grace & Company | , DOCKET NO. 04481 (1982). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse80040518 | Conwell | Chrysler Corporation | There was no evidence of any male employee or of any employee with a condition that was not sex-related who was under medical restrictions preventing performance of certain duties and who was classified as "physically qualified with exceptions" who was assigned "light duty" or "favoring work" since the employee whose leave caused the policy precluding such assignments. DOCKET NO. EMse80040518 (1982). |
| Discrimination Sex | EMse80040518 | Conwell | Chrysler Corporation | There was no evidence of any male employee or of any employee with a condition that was not sex-related who was under medical restrictions who was able to perform some but not all duties who received Sickness & Accident benefits. DOCKET NO. EMse80040518 (1982). |
| Discrimination Disability | PAha78080630A | Price | Illinois Mutual Life and Casualty Company | A complaint alleging that Complainant was denied a medical insurance because of her disability – epilepsy – failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. , DOCKET NO. PAha78080630A (1980). |
| Discrimination Disability | EMha78080630A | Culley | State of Indiana Rehabilitation Services | Respondent discriminated against Complainant based upon disability by denying him the opportunity to perform the duties of a Claims Adjudicator V. , DOCKET NO. EMha79020151 (1982). |
| Discrimination Disability | EMha771006225 | Grove | Wheelabrator Frye, Inc | Complainant was not denied bumping rights because of disability. DOCKET NO. EMha77100625 (1983). |
| Discrimination Retaliation | 06874 | Cord | Switzerland County School Corporation | A teacher who was notified that the cancellation of her contract and tenure would be considered by the School Board on the basis of parent complaints that had not been investigated by, or on behalf of, the school was so notified because she had filed a complaint with the commission. , DOCKET NO. 06874 (1977). |
| Discrimination Retaliation | 06632 | Henry | Transway division PBM Inc. d/b/a Hertz Rent-A-Car | A complainant who was discharged because her husband assaulted her supervisor and who failed to prove her claim of a campaign of harassment was not terminated in retaliation for having filed a prior complaint with the Commission. , DOCKET NO. 06632 (1978). |
| Discrimination Retaliation | EMrt78020139 | Georges | Lotus, Inc | Respondent discharged Complainant for unjustified insubordination and not in retaliation for his filing a complaint with the Commission. , DOCKET NO. EMrt78020139 (1979). |
| Discrimination Retaliation | EMno77120882 | Bevilaqua | Allen County Highway Department | To succeed in his retaliation complaint, Complainant needed to establish that at the time of the discharge, there was pending a civil rights complaint filed by Complainant against the person who is directly responsible for the subsequent termination of Complainant, and that the termination was within a sufficiently short span of time after the filing of the initial complaint so as to give rise to the inference that the termination was solely the result of the filing of the initial complaint. This is subject to direct rebuttal in any of its elements, as well as proof that Complainant was discharged for good cause and not otherwise subject to disparate treatment. , DOCKET NO. EMno77120882 (1979). |
| Discrimination Retaliation | EMno77120882 | Bevilaqua | Allen County Highway Department | The employer rebutted the third element of Complainant’s case by showing that a period in excess of a year and 5 months elapsed between the initial complaint and the discharge and Complainant received raises and all other benefits accorded other employees as a direct result of actions by the person responsible for the discharge. , DOCKET NO. EMno77120882 (1979). |
| Discrimination Retaliation | EMno77120882 | Bevilaqua | Allen County Highway Department | The employer was successful in showing that Complainant was discharged for an offense (falsifying a time card) with which it had no prior similar experience, and that discharge was not excessive under the circumstances or unusual compared to the industry as a whole. , DOCKET NO. EMno77120882 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment |
03243 03348 |
Gerardot and Burton | Sutherland Lumber Company | It was unlawful sex discrimination to terminate male employees who refused to comply with the Company’s rule prohibiting mustaches. Gerardot and Burton v. Sutherland Lumber Company, DOCKET NOS. 03243 and 03348 (1976); reversed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Sutherland Lumber, 394 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. App. 1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06874 | Cord | Switzerland County School Corporation | A curriculum coordinator who worked closely with elementary school principals and was transferred to a position as a classroom teacher and acting principal because she and one of those principals were in constant conflict was not transferred because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 06874 (1977). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06874 | Cord | Switzerland County School Corporation | A teacher who was notified that the cancellation of her contract and tenure would be considered by the School Board on the basis of parent complaints that had not been investigated by, or on behalf of, the school was so notified because she had filed a complaint with the commission., DOCKET NO. 06874 (1977). |
| Discrimination Employment | 02854 | Luddington | Indiana Bell Telephone Company | An employer that changed the shifts available for bidding from what those shifts had been the previous month committed unlawful racial discrimination, even though there was no evidence that the change was racially motivated, because the effect was to deprive a Black employee of premium pay. , DOCKET NO. 02854 (1977); reversed, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated v. Boyd, 421 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. App. 1981). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06632 | Henry | Transway Division PBM Inc. d/b/a Hertz Rent-A-Car | A complainant who was discharged because her husband assaulted her supervisor and who failed to prove her claim of a campaign of harassment was not terminated in retaliation for having filed a prior complaint with the Commission. , DOCKET NO. 06632 (1978). |
| Discrimination Employment | 05290 | Williams | Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation | A complainant was discriminated against on the basis of her sex with regard to her training and testing as a Crane Operator when (1) she was denied an opportunity for additional training applied to males under a Company policy allowing them to “brush up on their weak points” before being retested, and (2) she was told by her supervisor that she had had enough training despite not having that opportunity. , Docket No. 05290 (1978); affirmed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation, 450 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. App. 1983). |
| Discrimination Employment | 01575 | Lewis | Salk | Respondents’ failure to employ Complainant after offering her employment was a discriminatory practice in violation of the Indiana Civil Rights Law. , DOCKET NO. 01575 (1978). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMrt78020139 | Georges | Lotus, Inc | Respondent discharged Complainant for unjustified insubordination and not in retaliation for his filing a complaint with the Commission. , Inc., DOCKET NO. Emrt78020139 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra77120799 | Mosley | RES Management Corporation | Complainant, a Deputy Sheriff, proved that the reason offered for his rejection for a position at an apartment complex – that Respondent thought it should hire an Indiana State Trooper or an Indianapolis Police Officer - was a pretext for racial discrimination by proving that the person hired was a Deputy Sheriff of a different race. , DOCKET NO. EMra77120799 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 03149 | Bates | Board of Trustees for Vincennes University | Complainant was one of two female employees working in an office about which customer complaints had been made. She failed to demonstrate that Respondent’s decision to terminate her as a result of those complaints occurred because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 03149 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06652 | Hinton | Bethlehem Steel Corporation, et. al., | An employer that suspended with intent to discharge, and eventually discharged, both participants in a fight – one Black and one White – because it could not determine which participant in the fight was the instigator did not commit unlawful race discrimination despite Complainant’s claim that the White employee’s version of the incident was inherently incredible. , et. al., DOCKET NO. 06652 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06652 | Hinton | Bethlehem Steel Corporation, et. al., | A local union did not commit unlawful race discrimination when it withdrew a grievance that it had filed on behalf of a Black employee who was one of two participants in a fight, the other being a White employee, because the local union could not determine which participant in the fight was the instigator despite Complainant’s claim that the White employee’s version of the incident was inherently incredible. , et. al., DOCKET NO. 06652 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer’s re-assignment of Complainant’s job responsibilities was not based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer’s discharge of Complainant was not based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer’s failure to transfer Complainant to another position rather than discharging her was not based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer’s failure to provide Complainant with training for a position other than Traffic Clerk, Senior was not based in whole or in part upon her sex. Flanigan v. Ford , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation | An employer did not deny Complainant equal pay for work she performed that was equal or comparable to work performed by male employees or otherwise determine her compensation based in whole or in part upon her sex. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06872 | Epperson | Jay's Foods, Inc | Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof that the employer had committed a “discriminatory practice” by treating him differently than White driver-salesman trainees, when he failed to produce evidence of such disparate treatment. , DOCKET NO. 06872 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06872 | Epperson | Jay's Foods, Inc | Complainant failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination when he failed to prove that he was adequately performing the job of driver-salesman trainee. , DOCKET NO. 06872 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06872 | Epperson | Jay's Foods, Inc | Even if a prima facie case had been made, it was rebutted when the employer articulated the non-discriminatory reasons of sales slip errors and driving difficulties and Complainant failed to prove them pretextual. ., DOCKET NO. 06872 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful sex discrimination in termination because there is no evidence that the termination denied her an equal employment opportunity and there was no evidence of a similarly situated employee of the opposite sex. , DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | Complainant failed to establish of unlawful sex discrimination concerning her failure to be hired as a spa technician in the employer’s men’s division because she did not request that job and admitted that she was not qualified to perform all of its duties. , DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | Complainant did not offer any evidence to show that the employer’s actions or reasons for its actions were mere pretexts for sex discrimination. , DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | The employer was under no legal duty to retain the unique job position of receptionist-exercise helper for Complainant. , Inc., DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | There is no legal duty to custom tailor a job or make a special unnecessary job for a person because of his or her sex. , DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse78010012 | Kaiser | Silhouette National Health Spas, Inc | Complainant was not denied equal opportunities to employment because of her sex. The employer offered her a job of spa technician in the ladies’ division with the same duties, compensation, hours, working facilities, and opportunity for advancement as that of a spa technician in the men’s division. , DOCKET NO. EMse78010012 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 07786 | Duncan | Indiana State Highway Commission | The employer committed an unlawful discriminatory practice in that it excluded Complainant from equal opportunities because of sex by treating male and female employees in a non-uniform manner during the selection and interviewing process. , DOCKET NO. 07786 (1979), affirmed, Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission, 424 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. App. 1981). |
| Discrimination Employment | 07786 | Duncan | Indiana State Highway Commission | The employer committed a discriminatory practice in that Complainant showed: (1) she is female; (2) she applied and was qualified for a position for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) despite her qualifications, she was rejected for the position; (4) a less qualified male was selected for the position: and (5) the employer’s stated reasons for the interviews given male applicants but not female applicants and for selecting a male are in fact pretextual. , DOCKET NO. 07786 (1979), affirmed, Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission, 424 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. App. 1981). |
| Discrimination Employment | 05224A | Williams | Henry County Board of Health | The employer committed a discriminatory practice in that Complainant showed (1) she is female; (2) she applied and was considered for a position for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) she was qualified for the position; (4) despite her qualifications, she was rejected for the position; (5) a less qualified male was selected for the position; and the employer’s stated reasons for selecting the male over Complainant are in fact pretextual. , DOCKET NO. 05224A (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMno77120882 | Bevilaqua | Allen County Highway Department | To succeed in his retaliation complaint, Complainant needed to establish that at the time of the discharge, there was pending a civil rights complaint filed by Complainant against the person who is directly responsible for the subsequent termination of Complainant, and that the termination was within a sufficiently short span of time after the filing of the initial complaint so as to give rise to the inference that the termination was solely the result of the filing of the initial complaint. This is subject to direct rebuttal in any of its elements, as well as proof that Complainant was discharged for good cause and not otherwise subject to disparate treatment. , DOCKET NO. EMno77120882 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMno77120882 | Bevilaqua | Allen County Highway Department | The employer rebutted the third element of Complainant’s case by showing that a period in excess of a year and 5 months elapsed between the initial complaint and the discharge and Complainant received raises and all other benefits accorded other employees as a direct result of actions by the person responsible for the discharge. , DOCKET NO. EMno77120882 (1979) |
| Discrimination Employment | EMno77120882 | Bevilaqua | Allen County Highway Department | The employer was successful in showing that Complainant was discharged for an offense (falsifying a time card) with which it had no prior similar experience, and that discharge was not excessive under the circumstances or unusual compared to the industry as a whole. , DOCKET NO. EMno77120882 (1979). |
| Discrimination Employment | 07493 | Thomas | Northwest Hendricks School Corp | It is a “discriminatory practice” to pay a female employee, because of her sex, less than a male employee when those employees perform jobs that are substantially equivalent in terms of skill, effort, and responsibility. ., DOCKET NO. 07493 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08318 | Greathouse | Stokely Van Camp, Inc., | The allocation of proof is: (1) Complainant may establish a prima facie case by proving that she is black, that she was able to perform the job satisfactorily, that she was nevertheless terminated, and that the job thereafter remained open to individuals of her qualifications; (2) if Complainant carries that burden, Respondent may rebut that case by showing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge; (3) upon such a rebuttal, Complainant can prevail only by proving that that Respondent’s stated reason was merely a pretext for a racially motivated discharge. ., DOCKET NO. 08318 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08318 | Greathouse | Stokely Van Camp, Inc., | In view of her admitted shortcomings with the performance of significant elements of her job, Complainant did not satisfy her initial burden of proving that she was capable of performing the duties of the job of security guard in a satisfactory manner. ., DOCKET NO. 08318 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08318 | Greathouse | Stokely Van Camp, Inc., | Even had Complainant carried her burden of establishing a prima facie case, evidence was introduced establishing that Complainant knowingly violated Respondent’s rules and orally and physically assaulted and battered her supervisor and that Respondent had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge – insubordination. , DOCKET NO. 08318 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08318 | Greathouse | Stokely Van Camp, Inc., | Complainant’s testimony regarding pretext was not credible in view of multiple, material contradictions and omissions, the divergence in her testimony from documentary evidence and her prior deposition testimony, her demeanor on the witness stand,, and the inherent implausibility of her account. , DOCKET NO. 08318 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 05131 | Brown | Tippecanoe School Corporation | Complainant presented a prima facie case by proving that (a) he was a member of a protected class (Black); (b) he was adequately performing his job; (c) he was discharged; and (d) his position was not eliminated but was filled by a White man. , DOCKET NO. 05131 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 05131 | Brown | Tippecanoe School Corporation | The employer produced evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging Complainant – his absence on a specific day without prior notice and his erratic work schedule the prior week. , DOCKET NO. 05131 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 05131 | Brown | Tippecanoe School Corporation | Respondent’s asserted reason for discharging Complainant was found to be a pretext for unlawful racial discrimination because: (a) Complainant did notify Respondent of his absence prior to his scheduled starting time; (b) Respondent failed to prove that Complainant’s work schedule the prior week was erratic other than one day which was found to be excused: (c)Complainant’s working schedule starting the day after his discharge would have been 3 to 11 and his attendance had never been a problem on that schedule; and (d) White employees who had notified Respondent of their absence had not been discharged as a result of the absence. , DOCKET NO. 05131 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 05055 | Ryearson | Indiana Department of Public Welfare | By never granting maternity leave or sick leave without pay, Respondent treated pregnancy disabilities equally with other medical disabilities. , DOCKET NO. 05055 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 05055 | Ryearson | Indiana Department of Public Welfare | The state Personnel department committed an unlawful discriminatory practice by maintaining a system excluding female employees from equal opportunities because of sex by promulgating and administering rules making paid sick leave unavailable to employees disabled by pregnancy. , DOCKET NO. 05055 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08123 | Laczi | Schererville Police Department | A police department was found to have committed an unlawful discriminatory practice when the chief discouraged Complainant from pursuing her application because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 08123 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08123 | Laczi | Schererville Police Department | Complainant was not denied a position because of sex because (1) 2 of the officers hired were experienced dog handlers (which the department needed because it had 2 trained dogs and no trained dog handlers) which Complainant was not and (2) the other officer hired had, unlike Complainant, already graduated from the Law Enforcement Academy, allowing him to be assigned to patrol at least 8 weeks earlier than Complainant. , DOCKET NO. 08123 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06688 | Joyner | Howard Community Hospital Kokomo, Indiana | An employer did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice based on race or sex by dividing the Department of Environmental Services, of which she had been the director, and assigning her to be Laundry Manager, when there were legitimate reasons for the reorganization, the employer had reorganized before, and Complainant’s pay and status were unaffected. , DOCKET NO. 06688 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 02704 | Blackmon | State of Indiana division of Personnel and Indiana Department of Correction | Complainant applied for a transfer to a position as a Parole Investigator, during which he was told that the job would be dangerous for a Black person because he would have to deal with people in small southern communities. It was found that he would not have been selected even in the absence of that consideration because his supervisor had recommended against selecting Complainant because Complainant had demonstrated an inability to get along with, and cooperate with, people. , DOCKET NO. 02704 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 06982 | Dieckmann | Princeton Industries Corp., | The employer was found not to have terminated Complainant because of her relationship with a Black man because the employer introduced evidence of a legitimate business reason for its decision that was not shown to be a pretext for unlawful discrimination. , DOCKET NO. 06982 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun GMC, Inc | Whether other employees, white or black, were discharged for chronic tardiness had no bearing on whether Complainant was, in fact, chronically tardy. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun GMC, Inc, | Whether other employees, white or black, were discharged for violating the management assistance policy had no bearing on whether Complainant had, in fact, violated that policy., DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun GMC, Inc | Whether other employees, white or black, were discharged for lack of productivity had no bearing on whether Complainant’s productivity was, in fact, acceptable. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun GMC, Inc, | Complainant’s employment history before and after his tenure with Respondent was of no relevance to determining why he was discharged by Respondent. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun GMC, Inc | The failure to produce relevant evidence available to a party gives rise to an inference that the evidence would have been harmful to that party. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04593 | Smith | City of Muncie | Respondent’s denial of Complainant’s application for membership in the Pension Fund based upon a psychiatric report was unlawful because Respondent evaluated similarly situated White applicants more favorably. , DOCKET NO. 04593 (1980); reversed Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. City of Muncie, 459 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. App. 1984). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08294 | Sagers | Bedford Glass and Auto Parts | Termination of an employee who failed to comply with a grooming standard prohibiting beards was not unlawful sex discrimination. DOCKET NO. 08294 (1980). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra77120900 | Minor | Zimmer Paper Products | Complainant was discharged for excessive absenteeism and tardiness and poor workmanship. It was found that Complainant’s absenteeism and tardiness were substantially worse than other employees in his classification and thus found that his discharge had not been proven to be due to racial discrimination. , DOCKET NO. EMra77120900 (1981). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse79070782 | Flanagan | Indiana Veterans Home | The employer did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice when it failed to reemploy Complainant because of his prior work record and relative lack of competitive qualifications. , DOCKET NO. EMse79070782 (1981). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse80030289 | Butters | C.K. Restaurants, Inc | Placing a female on involuntary unpaid pregnancy leave when she was medically able to continue her job duties in a satisfactory fashion was an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon sex. , DOCKET NO. EMse80030289 (1981). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04642(B) and 04645(B) | Trice and Barbour | Chrysler Corporation | Complainants were among the most prominent of a group of Black employees who, in protest of another Black employee’s discharge, kicked open the door to the Production office, made threatening comments, and refused to leave when so directed. They were discharged, but those discharges were later reduced to lengthy suspensions in arbitration. The Commission ruled: 1. Complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because they failed to show that similarly situated White employees received more favorable treatment. 2. The employer articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the disciplinary action taken. 3. Complainants failed to demonstrate that the articulated reason was a pretext for unlawful race discrimination. 4. Complainants failed to demonstrate a “retaliatory motive or intent” for their discipline. 5. Though there was some evidence that the union may have failed to properly represent its Black members prior to this incident, the Director had found No Probable Cause as against the union; therefore, no order or conclusions could be made as to the union. , DOCKET NOS. 04642(B) and 04645(B) (1981). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra80030375 | Hooten | American Diversified Foods, Inc. d/b/a Arby's | The Director’s Finding found that there was no probable cause to believe that Complainant’s termination was in violation of the Indiana Civil Rights Law and notified her that she could request reconsideration. She did not. The finding also found that there was probable cause as to Complainant’s allegation of sexual harassment. The Commission ruled that Complainant’s termination was not properly before it, because of Complainant’s failure to timely appeal the Director’s finding and that, otherwise, Complainant (who introduced no evidence) had failed to prove a violation. , DOCKET NO. EMra80030375 (1981). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMha79020151 | Culley | State of Indiana Rehabilitation Services | Respondent discriminated against Complainant based upon disability by denying him the opportunity to perform the duties of a Claims Adjudicator V. , DOCKET NO. EMha79020151 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08390 | Curler | City of Fort Wayne | Neither the failure of the City to hire Complainant in the kennel worker position for which he bid nor the failure of the City to place Complainant in the position of relief utility worker were the result of discrimination because of race. , DOCKET NO. 08390 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08465 | Sample | International Harvester Co | Respondent did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice in regard to Complainant’s pay because (1) it did not fail to pay him any amounts owed at the time owed; and (2) there was no evidence that the perceived shortages, or the methods Respondent used to investigate the claimed shortages were affected by race. DOCKET NO. 08465 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08465 | Sample | International Harvester Co | Complainant did not rebut the evidence introduced by Respondent showing that his discharge was for a legitimate business reason – insubordination. , DOCKET NO. 08465 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 08465 | Sample | International Harvester Co | Complainant did not rebut the evidence introduced by Respondent showing that its refusal to reinstate him was for a legitimate business reason – threatening physical violence against employees of Respondent on more than one occasion. ., DOCKET NO. 08465 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse79070767 | Ballard | Kennecott Corporation | The males treated more favorably than Complainant were treated that way because, unlike Complainant, they had completed their probationary period before the institution of a “rule of thumb” concerning what constituted excessive absenteeism and tardiness for a probationary employee. , DOCKET NO. EMse79070767 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04481 | Hartwell | Indiana University | The difference between the salaries of Complainant and her successor was because of the additional duties, skill and responsibility required and not because of sex. y, DOCKET NO. 04481 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04481 | Hartwell | Indiana University | The restructuring of Complainant’s position after she resigned was not done because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 04481 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 04481 | Hartwell | Indiana University | espondent did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice when it paid Complainant’s male successor more than it had paid Complainant because of the additional duties, skill and responsibility required and not because of sex. , DOCKET NO. 04481 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra78010067 | Ryle | City of Indianapolis, Department of Transporation | Complainant did not prove that the reasons offered by Respondent were pretexts for racial discrimination, either by showing them to be unworthy of credence, by showing that any similarly situated White employee was treated more favorably, or otherwise. , DOCKET NO. EMra78010067 (1983). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra78010067 | Ryle | City of Indianapolis, Department of Transporation | Complainant did not prove that he was harassed by his supervisor because of race. , DOCKET NO. EMra78010067 (1983). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra80050656 | West | Franklin Community School Corporation | Complainant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason offered by Respondent for not selecting her for a position was a pretext for racial discrimination. , DOCKET NO. EMra80050656 (1982) |
| Discrimination Employment | 07184 | Kent | Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation | Complainant did not establish that her discharge was the result of the closer monitoring to which she was subjected. , DOCKET NO. 07184 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 07184 | Kent | Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation | In light of the nature and number of Complainant’s job performance problems, Respondent would have discovered them and discharged her even if it had not monitored her more closely., DOCKET NO. 07184 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 07184 | Kent | Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation | There was no evidence that any White employee was retained who had any or all of the job performance problems that Complainant had. , DOCKET NO. 07184 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | 07184 | Kent | Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation | Complainant failed to prove that her discharge was caused by race. , DOCKET NO. 07184 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMra81020200 | Stevens | Lincoln Manufacturing Company, Inc | Despite the admission of considerable evidence about the discipline of both Black and White employees, Complainant did not demonstrate that the reasons offered by the employer were pretexts for racial discrimination, either by showing them to be unworthy of credence or by showing that any similarly situated White employee was treated more favorably. DOCKET NO. EMra81020200 (1982) |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse80040518 | Conwell | Chrysler Corporation | There was no evidence of any male employee or of any employee with a condition that was not sex-related who was under medical restrictions preventing performance of certain duties and who was classified as "physically qualified with exceptions" who was assigned "light duty" or "favoring work" since the employee whose leave caused the policy precluding such assignments. CDOCKET NO. EMse80040518 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMse80040518 | Conwell | Chrysler Corporation | There was no evidence of any male employee or of any employee with a condition that was not sex-related who was under medical restrictions that was able to perform some but not all duties who received Sickness & Accident benefits. DOCKET NO. EMse80040518 (1982). |
| Discrimination Employment | EMha77100625 | Grove | Wheelabrator Frye, Inc | Complainant was not denied bumping rights because of disability. DOCKET NO. EMha77100625 (1983). |
| Discrimination Real Estate | 3141 | Jackson | Holman | It was unlawful to refuse to return a security deposit because of race. , DOCKET NO. 3141 (1975); reversed on other grounds, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Holman, 177 Ind. App. 648, 380 N.E.2d 1281 (1978). |
| Discrimination Real Estate | 3141 | Jackson | Holman | It was unlawful to refuse to renew a lease because of race. , DOCKET NO. 3141 (1975); reversed on other grounds, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Holman, 177 Ind. App. 648, 380 N.E.2d 1281 (1978). |
| Discrimination Real Estate | HOra77020127 | Lindsey | Ford | A landlord who told a potential tenant she would not rent to him after asking him his race, and explained that one of her current tenants was a “redneck” who carried a knife or machete committed unlawful racial discrimination. , DOCKET NO. HOra77020127 (1980). |
| Public Accommodations | 1286 | Mathis | Eastside Dolphin Club, Inc | It is racial discrimination to exclude a member of a club from the premises because of the race of the member’s guest. , DOCKET NO. 1286 (1973). |
| Public Accommodations | 1286 | Mathis | Eastside Dolphin Club, Inc | It is racial discrimination for a club to deny a longtime member’s application for renewal because of the race of a guest of the member. , DOCKET NO. 1286 (1973). |
| Public Accommodations | 01174 | Kinchloe | Miller's Barber Shop | Lack of skill is not a defense to a charge that a barber shop refused to cut a Black man’s hair. , DOCKET NO. 01174 (1974). |
| Public Accommodations | PAse77050257 | Powell | Reds Lounge, et. al. | When a public accommodation adopts and enforces a policy requiring males, but not females, to remove their hats for the reason that it is a way to control the clientele and helped to identify the customers when there is no reason why imposing a similar requirement on females would adversely affect control of clientele or identification of customers, it has committed a “discriminatory practice” by denying equal opportunities because of sex, noting that this was not a case where the disparate requirements were adopted and/or enforced because it is traditional etiquette for males, but not females, to remove their hats indoors. , et. al. DOCKET NO. Pase77050257 (1979). |
| Public Accommodations | PAha78080630A | Price | Illinois Mutual Life and Casualty Company | A complaint alleging that Complainant was denied a medical insurance because of her disability – epilepsy – failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. , DOCKET NO. PAha78080630A (1980). |
| Public Accommodations | PAra81050452 | Fisher | Indianapolis Public Transportation Corp. | Complainant failed to meet her burden of proving that she was evicted from a city bus because of race. , DOCKET NO. PAra81050452 (1982). |
| Credit | 07646 | Levie | LaFollette | A doctor’s office that billed married couples by billing the husband unless a request was made to bill the wife did not thereby commit unlawful sex discrimination because the disparity in opportunity was not substantially unequal. , DOCKET NO. 07646 (1977). |
| Jurisdiction Subject Matter | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications | The Commission lacks jurisdiction over a charge of discrimination because of age. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Jurisdiction Area | 07786 | Duncan | Indiana State Highway Commission | The state Highway Commission is a “person” as that term is defined in section 3(a) of the Indiana Civil Rights Law. , DOCKET NO. 07786 (1979), affirmed, Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission, 424 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. App. 1981). |
| Jurisdiction Complaints | EMra80081150 | Washington | St. Margaret Hospital | The complaint was not signed and verified before a notary public or another person duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments as then required by IC 22-9-1-3(o), the definition of “complaint”. Ind. R. Tr. P. 11(B) did not salvage the charge because (1) it could provide the oath requirement but not the acknowledgment requirement, and (2) the Trial Rules are not applicable before administrative agencies. , DOCKET NO. EMra80081150 (1982). |
| Technical Requirements | EMrt79101340 | Holloway | International Harvester Company | The Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over a case where the charging document is a carbon copy of a charge filed with the EEOC, where there is neither evidence nor a dispute that said carbon copy is a true, complete, and accurate copy. DOCKET NO. EMrt79101340 (1981). |
| Technical Requirements | EMrt79101340 | Holloway | International Harvester Company | The Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction, under a prior version of what is now IC 22-9-1-3(p), over a complaint that was not "signed and verified before a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments. DOCKET NO. EMrt79101340 (1981). |
| Jurisdiction Complaints | EMra80081150 | Washington | St. Margaret Hospital | IC 22-9-1-6(e) provides that ICRC could not hold a hearing in the absence of a complaint and that it could make no order or determination without a hearing; consequently, ICRC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. Washington v. St. Margaret Hospital, DOCKET NO. EMra80081150 (1982). , DOCKET NO. EMra80081150 (1982). |
| Jurisdiction Complaints | EMra79030264 | Hood | N & A Foundry | IC 22-9-1-6(e) provides that ICRC could not hold a hearing in the absence of a complaint and that it could make no order or determination without a hearing; consequently, ICRC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. The complaint was not signed and verified before a notary public or another person duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments as then required by IC 22-9-1-3(o), the definition of “complaint”. ., DOCKET NO. EMra79030264 (1982). |
| Jurisdiction Complaints | EMra79030264 | Hood | N & A Foundry | IC 22-9-1-6(e) provides that ICRC could not hold a hearing in the absence of a complaint and that it could make no order or determination without a hearing; consequently, ICRC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. ., DOCKET NO. EMra79030264 (1982). |
| Non-Monetary Remedies Reinstatement | 05290 | Williams | Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation | The Commission is empowered to order a respondent found liable to reinstate Complainant with retroactive seniority. , Docket No. 05290 (1978); affirmed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation, 450 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. App. 1983). |
| Non-Monetary Remedies Seniority | 05290 | Williams | Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation | The Commission is empowered to order a respondent found liable to reinstate Complainant with retroactive seniority. , Docket No. 05290 (1978); affirmed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation, 450 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. App. 1983). |
| Non-Monetary Remedies Affirmative Action | 05290 | Williams | Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation | It would be unjust to impose additional affirmative action obligations on an employer subject to Executive Order 11246 and the various regulations thereunder. , Docket No. 05290 (1978); affirmed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation, 450 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. App. 1983). |
| Non-Monetary Remedies Affirmative Action | 01575 | Lewis | Salk | The facility involved in the unlawful discrimination was no longer operated by either respondent and issues as to affirmative action and a cease and desist order were moot. , DOCKET NO. 01575 (1978). |
| Non-Monetary Remedies Affirmative Relief | 5055 | Ryearson | Indiana Department of Public Welfare | The policy found to be unlawful – precluding the use of sick leave by an employee disabled by pregnancy – having been changed, full relief can be obtained without a cease and desist order. , DOCKET NO. 5055 (1980). |
| Non-Monetary Remedies Affirmative Relief | 08123 | Laczi | Schererville Police Department | Advertising and reporting requirements were imposed on an employer found to have discouraged females from applying for positions. , DOCKET NO. 08123 (1980). |
| Non-Monetary Remedies Affirmative Relief | HOra77020127 | Lindsey | Ford | Advertising and reporting requirements were imposed on a landlord who had been found to have refused to rent a room to a Black man because of race. , DOCKET NO. HOra77020127 (1980). |
| 1286 | Mathis | Eastside Dolphin Club | A not-for-profit club whose elaborate screening mechanism was inoperative, and had never denied membership to any white applicant, was genuinely selective only on the basis of race, and was not a private club. , Inc., DOCKET NO. 1286 (1973). | |
| Public Accommodations Clubs | 05660 | McCarthy | Bell Conservation Club | A club formed in 1940 and open to male employees of Western Electric, and Indiana Bell that was genuinely exclusive, met regularly, maintained regular books and records, did not sell food or liquor, and made no profit that benefited individual members was a private club, not a public accommodation. , DOCKET NO. 05660 (1977). |
| Public Accommodations Government | 03508 | Long | Indiana Employment Security Division | A state agency exercising a quasi-judicial function, whose decision can be appealed to the Court of Appeals, is not offering its services to the general public and, therefore, is not a public accommodation. , DOCKET NO. 03508 (1976). |
| Standing | 05290 | Williams | Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation | A complainant who has completed her probationary period cannot complain on her own behalf about probationary discharges or denials of transfers to probationary employees despite an allegation that her treatment was part of a pattern and practice of treatment of women. The only persons authorized by statute to complain on behalf of others are the Director and Deputy Director. , Docket No. 05290 (1978); affirmed, Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corporation, 450 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. App. 1983). |
| Timeliness | EMra77120799 | Mosley | RES Management Corporation | A complaint need not be filed within the statutory period from the date Complainant suspects unlawful discrimination, but only needs to be filed within the statutory period from the date Complainant has some reasonably concrete information indicating that the suspected unlawful act was in fact unlawful. , DOCKET NO. EMra77120799 (1979). |
| Timeliness | 04199 | Flanigan | Ford Aerospace & Communications | The Commission lacked jurisdiction over Complainant’s claims of sex discrimination prior to February 28, 1973, apparently, though not explicitly, because of untimeliness. , DOCKET NO. 04199 (1979). |
| Timeliness | EMra79111474 | Witwer | Sears, Roebuck and Co | A complaint was filed in November of 1979 challenging an August 1974 layoff was untimely filed. Complainant’s argument that a provision in IC 22-9-1-3(o) (since repealed) allowing a complaint to be filed within 90 days after notification of a local agency’s final decision allowed the complaint failed because (1) it was not clear that Complainant had filed such a complaint; and (2) that provision was impliedly repealed by IC 22-9-1-12.1(d), which precluded a complainant from filing with both a local and the state agency. , DOCKET NO. EMra79111474 (1980). |
| Timeliness | EMra80020157 | Walker | Fruehauf Corporation | A complaint was untimely filed when not filed within the prescribed period of time from the alleged discriminatory acts. It was not salvaged by a provision in rules of the ICRC requiring to treat the complaint as filed with the ICRC as of the date filed with a local Commission created by the authority of IC 22-9-1-12 because IC 22-9-1-12 had been declared unconstitutional in , 367 N.E.2d 1090 (Ind. App. 1977). , DOCKET NO. EMra80020157 (1981). |
| Timeliness | EMra78120950 | Ellis | Indiana University Northwest | Tolling was inappropriate because Complainant waited over a year after the decision in , 367 N.E.2d 1090 (Ind. App. 1977) to file his complaint. , DOCKET NO. EMra78120950 (1982). |
| Timeliness | EMra78010063 | Green | Excel Corporation - Division of Excel Industries, Inc., | A complaint filed over a year after the alleged discriminatory act was held to have been untimely filed. It was not salvaged by a provision (since repealed) allowing a complaint to be filed within 90 days from the termination of a published and meaningful grievance procedure because that procedure had terminated more than 90 days before the filing of the complaint as well. It was held that the grievance procedure terminated upon notification of the arbitrator’s decision to the parties to the grievance procedure – the Company and the union; therefore, Complainant’s claim that he was not notified until much later was irrelevant. Industries, Inc., DOCKET NO. Emra78010063 (1981). |
| Timeliness | EMse80020177 | Faucett | International Harvester | A complaint was held untimely filed. A. A rule providing that a complaint filed with EEOC and deferred to ICRC was deemed filed with ICRC when filed with EEOC provided it conforms to the requirements of the Indiana Civil Rights Law was held inapplicable because it did not conform to e requirement (since repealed) that the complaint be signed and verified before a notary or other person authorized by law to administer oaths and take acknowledgments. B. A statutory provision allowing a local agency to transfer a complaint to ICRC and requiring ICRC to treat the complaint as if filed with ICRC when filed with the local agency was held inapplicable because of a lack of proof that the local agency was created pursuant to the applicable statute. C. Tolling was inappropriate because there was no showing that Respondent misled Complainant into failing to meet the time limit. , DOCKET NO. EMse80020177 (1981). |
| Timeliness | EMha77100625 | Grove | Wheelabrator Frye Inc | It was not appropriate to allow Complainant to litigate claims of retaliation first raised about 2¾ years after the events. DOCKET NO. EMha771000625 (1983). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | Inclusion of some findings proposed by Complainant in the proposed findings by the Hearing Officer was not evidence of bias by the Hearing Officer, when the Hearing Officer also declined to enter some findings proposed by Complainant, and made some findings not proposed by Complainant. ., DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | A Hearing Officer is not obligated to discuss in the proposed decision every bit of evidence admitted. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | The Commission chose not to disturb findings proposed by the Hearing Officer that were supported by evidence, despite conflicting evidence, because the Hearing Officer was present and able to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | Any error in reciting the prior employment history of the supervisor who terminated Complainant was harmless. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | Respondent waived any objection to a finding that the Hearing Officer could not make any finding that Complainant had harassed female co-workers because the only evidence was hearsay by failing to object to a conclusion of law that a finding cannot be based exclusively on hearsay. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | The Hearing Officer did not ignore Respondent’s argument that it was the aggregation of Complainant’s deficiencies that caused it to discharge Complainant. Instead, he found the argument unsupported by the credible evidence. ., DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | Any error in reference to a possible cause of action by Respondent against the other driver involved in an accident with Complainant while Complainant was driving a demonstrator vehicle owned by Respondent was harmless. DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra78070584 | Dudley | Dave Waite Pontiac, Datsun, GMC, Inc | The failure to produce relevant evidence available to a party gives rise to an inference that the evidence would have been harmful to that party. , DOCKET NO. EMra78070584 (1980). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra80030375 | Hooten | American Diversified Foods, Inc. d/b/a Arby's | The Director’s Finding found that there was no probable cause to believe that Complainant’s termination was in violation of the Indiana Civil Rights Law and notified her that she could request reconsideration. She did not. The finding also found that there was probable cause as to Complainant’s allegation of sexual harassment. The Commission ruled that Complainant’s termination was not properly before it, because of Complainant’s failure to timely appeal the Director’s finding and that, otherwise, Complainant (who introduced no evidence) had failed to prove a violation. , DOCKET NO. EMra80030375 (1981). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMrt80040428 | Steward | Kitchen Machinery | Dismissal, with prejudice, is appropriate based upon a Stipulation Of Dismissal, signed by counsel for the parties and based upon a settlement, the terms of which are undisclosed. , DOCKET NO. Emrt80040428 (1982). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMse82030219 | Dobbs | Muncie Public Library | A complaint may be dismissed based upon a Motion To Withdraw Complaint signed by counsel for Complainant based upon a settlement, the terms of which are undisclosed. , DOCKET NO. EMse82030219 (1982). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMra80020124 | Wynn | Board of Trusees, Marion Community School Corp., | A Petition For Administrative Closing, based on a desire to proceed in federal court, was granted. , DOCKET NO. EMra80020124 |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMha77100625 | Grove | Wheelabrator Frye, Inc | Whether an entity has 6 or more employees and is, therefore, an "employer" is a question, not of subject matter jurisdiction, but of jurisdiction over the particular case, and, as such, can be and was, waived by failure to raise it in a timely and proper manner. DOCKET NO. EMha771000625 (1983). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMha77100625 | Grove | Wheelabrator Frye, Inc | The Commission may consider hearsay evidence that would be inadmissible in court if it is not the only evidence on the particular point. DOCKET NO. EMha771000625 (1983). |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMha77100625 | Grove | Wheelabrator Frye, Inc | Hearsay is a statement, oral or written, made outside of the Hearing, and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. DOCKET NO. EMha771000625 (1983) |
| Adjudicatory Procedure | EMha77100625 | Grove | Wheelabrator Frye, Inc | It was not appropriate to allow Complainant to litigate claims of retaliation first raised about 2¾ years after the events. DOCKET NO. EMha771000625 (1983) |