IBJNews

Indiana: Right-to-work lawsuit can't be amended

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

State attorneys asked a federal judge Tuesday to bar a union from amending its lawsuit challenging Indiana's new right-to-work law, arguing that most of the new claims are the same as those in the original complaint filed in February.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller argued that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150's request was futile and "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." A message left with the union's attorney seeking comment wasn't immediately returned.

Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the right-to-work law on Feb. 1, making Indiana the 23rd state to ban unions from collecting mandatory fees from employees. The union, which has about 4,000 members in northwest Indiana, filed a lawsuit Feb. 22 challenging the law, calling it unconstitutional.

Zoeller said the union's only new arguments are that the right-to-work law violates the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude, and a challenge to the definition of the word "employee" found in an emergency rule.

He argued that requiring dues-paying union members to work alongside non-union personnel "is compulsory service and/or involuntary servitude within the meaning of the 13th Amendment." The state also noted that people have the right to work elsewhere or not to work at all.

The state also contends that the union's argument over the definition of an employee in an emergency rule expires on June 13, and that there is a good chance by the time a court rules on the matter that the rule would no longer be in effect.

The state's motion also argued that Zoeller and Daniels, who were both named as defendants, should be immune from the lawsuit.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT