Today, the Indiana Supreme Court decided the case of Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc. (FACES) v. Bridgewater and concluded that, because the Indiana Civil Rights Commission had no jurisdiction over a complaint, it never had power to do anything except dismiss that complaint and that, by extension, a retaliation claim based on the underlying complaint could not proceed either.
FACES was, in effect, a social group formed by homeschoolers. One of the kids was allergic to food that was being served at a masquerade ball being held as an alternative to Halloween. The group said that they wouldn’t ask the venue to provide anything else and told the parent of the allergic kid not to contact the venue but the kid could bring a meal from home. The kid’s parents filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. The group kicked the kid out of the group. The ICRC’s Administrative Law Judge concluded:
that FACES did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice because it had provided a reasonable accommodation for Mrs. Bridgewater’s daughter’s dietary needs—but that FACES did commit an unlawful discriminatory practice when it expelled the Bridgewater children after they filed the disability discrimination complaint. The administrative law judge ruled that Mrs. Bridgewater’s daughter should be awarded $5,000 in damages and that FACES should take corrective action.
The ICRC apparently reduced the damages somewhat but otherwise affirmed the ALJ. The Indiana Supreme Court found that the ICRC shouldn’t have been doing any of this because it doesn’t have jurisdiction.
The Indiana Civil Rights Law explicitly conditions the Commission’s exercise of its enforcement powers to incidents where a person has “engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice.” To be “unlawful” under the [Indiana Civil Rights] Law, the discriminatory practice must relate to “the acquisition or sale of real estate, education, public accommodations, employment, or the extending of credit.” Ind. Code § 22-9-1-3(l) (emphasis added).
Education was the only one of those items at issue here, and the Supreme Court found that to read the statute broadly enough to conclude that this claim related to education would be to convert almost every occasion of parental guidance and training into an activity “related to education.” And, by extension, the Indiana Supreme Court determined that the retaliation claim should also fail inasmuch as the ICRC didn’t have jurisdiction in the first place. To hold otherwise would invite and incentivize the intimidating technique of bootstrapping a retaliation claim onto a meritless complaint alleging discrimination not subject to the [Indiana Civil Rights] Law.
I like legal fees more than the next guy, but I shudder a little to think of the fees that were spent in this matter that could have been saved by a prompt ICRC order stating, “this doesn’t belong here – take it somewhere else.” There were probably fees responding to an investigator, asking for a determination of no probable cause, possibly mediating the case, then at a hearing before an ALJ, then petitioning the ICRC for review, then going through the Court of Appeal process, then going to the Indiana Supreme Court. And these are big time Indianapolis lawyer fees, not the sort of reasonably priced, sound legal advice you get from, say, an attorney in Tippecanoe County.
Doug writes: “I like legal fees more than the next guy, …”
“More”? Obviously not otherwise you would be in Indy or DC. :-) I think you meant to say “as much as the next guy”
I also shudder at the cost. The other day my daughter (who worked as barista until she was recently let go) was contacted by a Indy lawyer to discuss potential litigation against her former employer. Junior partners start at $160/hour while senior partners are $960/hour. The contacting lawyer was $400/hour. Now I understand that those fees cover a lot of expenses and are on a contingency basis but still — especially for someone who earns $10/hour — those fees are sky-high. Maybe she’ll now be motivated to go to law school?
I typically bill out at $200 per hour. The county pays me $185 per hour. But those are fees that actually get paid. Some of the contingency guys charge rates that are mostly notional since their clients will never pay them and are inflated because it’s a bill they hope to give the opposing party if they win.
Rick, with the super-saturated market for attorneys that we have, going to law school would be a great mistake. Your daughter would still be a barista with $100 grand in student loan debt.
I understand that the market for an attorney significantly improves when the law degree is combined with another professional field, such as library science, psychologist, nurse, physician, and other areas that can be combined. Is that true?
That would be correct, Stewart. My wife who is a molecular biologist could get a law degree and come out as a patent attorney for health and life sciences.
There is a lot of talk about the importance of STEM degrees, but the more cynical writers suggest that this is just a move to increase the number of folks with that training so people can pay them less. (Jobs complained that he couldn’t find enough computer engineers in the U.S., so he went to China–where he could get them for 1/4 the cost.) In Italy, they opened the doors for people to be educated in STEM, which resulted in lower pay and overcrowded STEM fields. It would be a smart strategy for a STEM graduate to combine that with a law degree. Hmmm. An attorney who really knows something could be dangerous!
“… a move to increase the number of folks with that training [STEM] so people can pay them less. …”
And yet this doesn’t seem to be the case for law. I am far from an expert on this topic — just a casual layperson — but it seems to me that a glut of lawyers doesn’t reduce the steep per-hour fees that lawyers charge but merely leads to a lot of unemployed lawyers.
Rick, I have gone to some educational seminars about the economics of the practice of law. There is a point at which the costs of operating an office cannot be lowered. There is a role for pro bono, but it cannot begin to cover the needs of people that need the services.
That is not going to change, but tax credits for charity work, stipends for periods done doing charity work could increase the supply some.
There is also the phenomenon where lawyers create the demand for other lawyers. Maybe like a network effect. A phone is useless unless a lot of other people have phones.
Dog, your analysis is correct. On a different note, when I look at legal aid, and its all in or nothing approach, I see the very poor or disabled screwing over the near poor (small landlords, land contract sellers). with an attorney that can spend a massive amount of legal resources.