THE INDIANA LAWYER
CUMMINGS CASE
Type of Action:
Civil Rights
Name of Case:
Shirley A. Cummings, Personal Representative, and Allie
Shaw v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission, et al.
Type of Injuries:
Emotional distress.
Date of Judgment:
Partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on liability and
injunctive relief: February 19, 1997. Final judgment on settlement of damages: May 8,
1998.
Court/Case #:
Marion Superior Court No. 1, Case No. 49D01-8903-CP-0362.
Judge or Jury Trial:
Judge issued partial summary judgment and set the
case for jury trial on damages.
Name of Judge:
Judge Anthony Metz issued the partial summary judgment for
plaintiffs on liability and injunctive relief. Judge David A. Jester presided over the
jury trial preparations and settlement of damages.
Judgment:
Reversal of the Commission judgment and the issuance of
injunctive relief.
Settlement Amount:
Release of plaintiffs from the Commission order to pay
$40,000, plus payment of $15,000 to plaintiffs for emotional distress, plus $85,000 to
plaintiffs for all of their attorney fees and costs.
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Richard L. Darst, Indianapolis.
Attorneys for Defendant:
Available upon request.
Case Information:
When husband and wife as landlords attempted
to evict tenants, the tenants claimed to the Indiana Civil Rights Commission that the
eviction was because the landlord did not approve of the African-American friend of the
tenants' teen-age children. The tenants claimed that the landlord used racial slurs, and
the landlord denied it. The husband tenant did admit that he called the husband landlord a
"God damned old son-of-a-bitch" and doubled up his fists at the landlord. The
landlord filed an eviction action.
The Indiana Civil Rights Commission interviewed the husband landlord
at his home and then issued a temporary restraining order against the landlord without
notice of the motion and without an opportunity to respond to the motion. The Commission
set the case for hearing before the entire Commission, instead of before an administrative
judge. No member of the Commission was a judge or a lawyer.
The Commission provided a Commission attorney to the tenants but did
not provide any kind of attorney to the landlords. The Commission provided the Commission
investigative file to the tenants but refused to provide the investigative file to the
landlords. The Executive Director of the Commission represented both the tenants and the
Commission. The Commission attorney represented both the tenants and the Commission. The
Commission entered a judgment in favor of the tenants. The tenants testified that they had
no out-of-pocket expenses, but the Commission ordered the landlords to pay the tenants
$25,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $40,000.
The Commission ordered the landlords not to proceed with their eviction action in court.
The landlords as plaintiffs sued in court to overturn the Commission
judgment and to obtain damages for the violation of their constitutional rights. The court
reversed the Commission judgment as arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of statutory
authority. The court held that the plaintiffs were denied their constitutional right of
access to the courts and their right to have judicial matters decided by the judicial
branch. The court held that the plaintiffs were denied their due process rights of notice,
opportunity to respond, right to be advised of the substance of the evidence, and the
right to an impartial tribunal. The plaintiffs were also denied their rights to equal
protection of the laws. The court also held that various state rights were violated, such
as the right to have probable cause found before a charge was sent to final hearing and
the right to receive a proposed conciliation agreement before a hearing. The court issued
an injunction against the violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The court
granted various immunities to individual defendants, except the Executive Director of the
Commission. The Executive Director settled the damage issue.
After the filing of this case, the law was changed to give
respondents before the Commission the choice of a court trial or a Commission trial with
appeal (not de novo) to the Court of Appeals. The situation is still that none of the
Commissioners are lawyers. Whether parties can be asked to waive their right to have
judicial matters decided by the judicial branch is a matter of dispute. The Commission is
still arguing in other cases that it should have the power to award compensatory and
punitive damages.
Top
