Ind. Code » Title 22
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 22-9-1-16 (2026)

Election of civil action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 16. (a) A respondent or a complainant may elect to have the claims that are the basis for a finding of probable cause decided in a civil action as provided by section 17 of this chapter. However, both the respondent and the complainant must agree in writing to have the claims decided in a court of law. The agreement must be on a form provided by the commission.

     (b) The election may not be made if the commission has begun a hearing on the record under this chapter with regard to a finding of probable cause.

As added by P.L.14-1994, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.167-1996, SEC.1.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Montgomery v. Bd. of Trs. of Purdue Univ., 849 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Montgomery v. Bd. of Trs. of Purdue Univ., 849 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2006). · cites it 4× “I.C. §§ 22-9-1-16, 22-9-1-17. Montgomery argues that the General Assembly intended to create an exception to employmentat-will because the IADA, unlike the ICRL, places no restrictions on civil actions by individual employees.”
Fort Wayne Metro. Human Relations Comm'n v. Marathon Gas Station, 926 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “6 contravenes I.C. § 22-9-1-16 and as a result, the parties failed to comply with the procedural requirements and the trial court cannot exercise its jurisdiction.”
MC Welding & MacHining Co. v. Kotwa, 845 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code §§ 22-9-1-16, -17. However, both the "respondent and the complainant must agree in writing to have the claims decided in a court of law.”
Nieman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 706 F. Supp. 2d 897 (C.D. Ill. 2010). · cites it 3× “2d at 1130 ; see Ind.Code §§ 22-9-1-16 & 22-9-1-17.”
Norman v. Mauser Packing/Bway, No. 2:22-cv-00242 (N.D. Ind. May 23, 2023). · cites it 2× “2010); Ind. Code §§ 22-9-1-16 , 22-9-1-17. The Plaintiff’s brief does not respond with an assertion of any claim under the ICRL.”
Mortland v. Lights Out Developments, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-02557 (S.D. Ind. July 1, 2020). · cites it 2× “5, 2000) (citing Ind. Code § 22-9-1-16 ). "Otherwise, there is no private right of action, and in fact, no cause of action under" § 22-9-1-2.”
Chapman v. Wood, No. 1:22-cv-02278 (S.D. Ind. June 14, 2023). · cites it 2× “3; Ind. Code §§ 22-9-1-16 , -17. Without both parties’ written consent, an Indiana trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over any Indiana Civil Rights Law claims.”
Masterson v. Int'l Leadership Sch., No. 1:23-cv-00378 (N.D. Ind. July 29, 2024). · cites it 2× “Ind. Code Ann. § 22-9-1-16 (West). In this case, Plaintiff has not pursued the administrative process under Indiana law, nor does he allege that any agreement between the parties exists that would allow him to bypass the administrative process.”
Chapman v. Wood, No. 1:22-cv-02278 (S.D. Ind. July 31, 2023). “§§ 22-9-1-16, - 17; Fort Wayne Metro. Hum.”
Ind. Code § 22-9-1-16(a): 1 case
MC Welding & MacHining Co. v. Kotwa, 845 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code §§ 22-9-1-16, -17. However, both the "respondent and the complainant must agree in writing to have the claims decided in a court of law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.