FILED DISSENT ON REHEARING Jul 13 2016, 11:56 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy F. Devereux Rick D. Meils Daniel A. Ladendorf Neil A. Davis Ladendorf Law John W. Mervilde Indianapolis, Indiana Meils Thompson Dietz & Berish Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR THE AMICUS CURIAE Alexander Jesus Limontes Indiana Trial Lawyers Association Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Noe Escamilla, July 13, 2016 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 54A01-1506-CT-602 v. Appeal from the Montgomery Superior Court Shiel Sexton Company, Inc., The Honorable Heather L.

Appellee-Defendant Dennison, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 54D01-1107-CT-562

Baker, Judge, dissenting.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Dissent on Rehearing 54A01-1506-CT-602 | July 13, 2016 Page 1 of 2 [1] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to deny Escamilla’s petition for rehearing and I wish to reiterate the position that I expressed in greater detail in my previous dissenting opinion. See Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., No. 54A01-1506-CT-602, Slip Op. at *8 (Ind. Ct. App. March 31, 2016) (Baker, J., dissenting). I believe that knowledge of a party’s immigration status alone sheds no meaningful light on the question of whether that party will one day face deportation. Such information cannot be “considered,” in any real sense of the word, and can serve only as a basis for speculation that will likely result in prejudice. I would vote to grant the petition for rehearing as I believe that the majority should address these concerns.

Court of Appeals of Indiana |Dissent on Rehearing 54A01-1506-CT-602 | July 13, 2016 Page 2 of 2