Niki DaSil Va, et al. v. State of Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendant on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964and several other statutes, as well as Indiana's common law theories.



Four women, all employed by the state's House or Senate,

filed this suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

and several other statutes, as well as Indiana's common law.

The defendants were Hill and the State of Indiana. The House

and Senate intervened as additional defendants, contending

that they rather than the state should be treated as the plain-

tiffs' employers. The district judge dismissed all claims

against Hill without prejudice to their renewal in state court.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101481 (S.D. Ind. June 9, 2020). The court

also dismissed all claims against Indiana, ruling that it is not

plaintiffs' employer. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35257 (S.D. Ind.

Mar. 2, 2020). At plaintiffs' request, the judge entered a partial

final judgment in Indiana's favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b),

permiTing plaintiffs to take an immediate appeal. 2020 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 101482 (S.D. Ind. June 9, 2020). Claims against the

House and Senate remain pending in the district court.



* * *



The district court dismissed the claims against Indiana on

March 2, 2020, and plaintiffs requested a Rule 54(b) judgment

39 days later, on April 10. That creates problems under

Schaefer v. First National Bank of Lincolnwood, 465 F.2d 234 (7th

Cir. 1972), and King v. Newbold, 845 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2017),

both of which hold that litigants have only 30 days to make

such requests. Plaintiffs reply that 39 days is not much longer

than 30—and that the declaration of a pandemic in mid-

March 2020 complicated the practice of law. Still, if a 30-day

limit is jurisdictional, there's no way around it. Both Schaefer

and King dismissed the appeals for want of appellate jurisdic-

tion; evidently they saw a jurisdictional problem.

Affirmed