The Indiana Court of Appeals has granted the request of East Chicago Professional Firefighters Local 365 to send a lawsuit against the city back to trial court. In that suit, the firefighters alleged that the city violated Indiana Code § 36-8-4-9(a), which requires firefighters to receive at least twenty-four consecutive hours off duty in every eight-day period, as well as a local ordinance that provides for six “reduction days” totaling 144 hours annually.  

The case dates back to December 7, 2019, when the City unilaterally moved firefighters from a traditional 24/48 schedule to a rotating 8-hour swing shift.  That schedule consisted of an 8-hour day shift, followed by 24 hours off, then an 8-hour evening shift, followed by 24 hours off, then an 8-hour overnight shift, followed by 24 hours off—and then the cycle repeated.  

The firefighters sued the city in federal court in 2021, contending the new schedule was punitive retaliation tied to union political activity and support for the mayor’s opponent. Incidentally, the mayor who imposed the new schedule was himself a former East Chicago firefighter. The federal district court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the City to restore the 24/48 schedule. Here is our earlier coverage.  The Seventh Circuit later affirmed that injunction. Here is a copy of that decision.

The Indiana Court of Appeals decision stems from a second lawsuit filed downstream from the federal case, arising from that same scheduling change. In the second suit the firefighters claimed the new schedule deprived them of certain off-duty time mandated by state law and local ordinances. They sought declaratory relief establishing that the city’s scheduling practices was illegal. The suit was filed as a class action with a proposed class consisting of approximately eighty-four current and former firefighters employed during the relevant periods.  

The trial court conducted a hearing on class certification and concluded that the case qualified as a Trial Rule 23(B)(3) class action. It certified two damages classes: firefighters employed from December 7, 2019 forward, and firefighters employed during calendar year 2021. The court appointed Local 365 President David Mata Jr. as class representative.   However, although the court acknowledged uncertainty as to whether the case would proceed as an “opt in” or “opt out” class action, it never directed formal notice to class members concerning the litigation or their rights and options as class participants.  

After the court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of the firefighters on the statutory claim, the firefighters filed a petition under Indiana’s Declaratory Judgment Act seeking additional relief in the form of compensatory damages. They argued that firefighters had suffered measurable losses because they were denied meaningful and predictable time off.   The city urged the court to consider an equitable remedy instead of monetary damages.  

In a May 23, 2025 order, the trial court ruled that firefighters were entitled to the six reduction days provided by the ordinance for 2021. On the state law claim, the court found that the firefighters had suffered injuries from the loss of predictable time off, including disruption to childcare, family events, religious activities, medical appointments, outside employment opportunities, hobbies, and family relationships. Nonetheless, the court concluded that monetary damages alone were inadequate and instead fashioned an equitable remedy.

The firefighters filed a motion to correct error, arguing in part that the trial court had never complied with the mandatory notice provisions governing Rule 23(B)(3) class actions.   The trial court denied the motion, and the firefighters appealed.

The principal issue on appeal was whether the trial court committed reversible error by certifying and adjudicating a Rule 23(B)(3) class action without directing formal notice to identifiable class members and advising them of their rights and opt-out options as required by Indiana Trial Rule 23(C)(2).  

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s failure to direct notice to class members as required by Trial Rule 23(C)(2) constituted reversible error.  

The court rejected the city’s arguments that the issue had been waived, that notice was discretionary because no formal certification petition had been filed, or that the attendance of firefighters at hearings amounted to sufficient notice.   Relying on both Indiana and federal class action precedent, the court emphasized that due process requires actual notice and an opportunity for class members to participate or opt out in Rule 23(B)(3) cases.  

The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.