Massa, J.
Indiana law permits public employers to provide their employees with health insurance. Our law also allows local governmental units to exclude part-time employees from group health insurance. In this case, the Perry County Board of Commissioners voted to exclude Keith Huck, an elected county councilman, from group health insurance coverage, because they deemed him to be a part-time employee under the relevant statutes. As we read the statutes, Perry County was permitted to do so. We therefore reverse the trial court’s ruling to the contrary, vacate the preliminary injunction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
….
Huck does not have a reasonable probability of success on the merits.
The question before the Court is whether local elected officials may be designated as part-time employees, which would therefore permit the County to exclude them from group health insurance. The answer, as found in the statutes, is yes.
….
Indiana Code Section 5-10-8-2.6(b), which applies to local unit public employers and employees, specifies that “a public employer may provide programs of group insurance for its employees . . . . The public employer may, however, exclude part-time employees . . . from any group insurance coverage that the public employer provides to the employer’s full-time employees.” (Emphasis added). The parties agree, as do we, that the County is a local unit public employer. Indiana Code Section 5-10-8- 1(5) provides that a “local unit” includes a city, town, county, township, public library, municipal corporation, school corporation, or charter school. Subsection 1(7) defines a “public employer” as the “state or local unit, including any board, commission, department, division, authority, institution, establishment, facility, or governmental unit under the supervision of either, having a payroll in relation to persons it immediately employs, even if it is not a separate taxing unit.” Thus, the County “may provide programs of group health insurance for its employees” and may also “exclude part-time employees” from its group plan. I.C. § 5-10-8-2.6(b).
The statute defines an “employee” eligible for health insurance, though it does not define “part-time employee” specifically. Section 5-10- 8-1(1) defines an “employee” as:
(A) an elected or appointed officer or official, or a full-time employee;
(B) if the individual is employed by a school corporation, a fulltime or part-time employee;
(C) for a local unit public employer, a full-time or part-time employee or a person who provides personal services to the unit under contract during the contract period; or Indiana
(D) a senior judge appointed under IC 33-24-3-7;
whose services have continued without interruption at least thirty (30) days.
Huck argues the County, in withholding healthcare coverage from him, violated this statutory scheme. Under Huck’s reading of Section 5-10-8- 1(1)(A), the use of a comma and the word “or” creates five classes of employees: “elected officers,” “elected officials,” “appointed officers,” “appointed officials,” and “full-time employees.”…
We agree with Huck that he is a county “employee,” but not for the reason he asserts. As the County notes, Subsection 1(1)(A) broadly applies to any type of “elected or appointed officer or official,” whereas Subsection 1(1)(C) is a more specific statute that applies only to a “local unit” like the County. “For a local unit public employer, [employee means] a full-time or part-time employee or a person who provides personal services to the unit under contract during the contract period.” I.C. § 5-10-8-1(1)(C). As the more specific provision dealing with local units, Subsection 1(1)(C) applies here, not Subsection 1(1)(A), a general provision that does not reference local units. Neukam, 189 N.E.3d at 155; SAC Fin., Inc., 894 N.E.2d at 1120. And under Subsection 1(1)(C), it does not matter that Huck is an elected official. He is an “employee” and thus eligible for health insurance so long as the County classifies his position as either full- or part-time. Huck acknowledges that Subsection 1(1)(C) might also apply here but nonetheless insists we should apply Subsection (1)(1)(A). But this reading asks us to engage in selective reading of individual words, which would lead to disharmonizing results. Spells, 225 N.E.3d at 772. All local elected or appointed officers or officials paid under the County’s salary ordinance are included under Subsection 1(1)(C), giving the County the flexibility to treat elected officials as part-time employees if it so chooses. Therefore, under Section 5-10-8-2.6(b), the County may deny him group health insurance.
While Huck’s reading of the statute may be accurate for state elected officials, it overlooks a crucial distinction as Subsection 1(1)(C) acts as a qualifier for all local unit public employees…
As a result, while local unit public employers are not required to do so, they may categorize their locally elected officials as full-time or part-time employees. Thus, local unit public employers may exclude group health insurance for those they designate as part-time employees. I.C. § 5-10-8- 2.6(b) (emphasis added). We read the statute as the Legislature distinguishing local unit public employees from other employees. By doing this, we find that the Legislature intended for local unit public employers to retain discretion in the classification of their employees as full-time or part-time. This reading then correlates with the discretion the Legislature has given to local unit public employers in Subsection 5-10-8- 2.6(b), allowing them to provide or exclude group health insurance for those deemed part-time.
….
In our view, Huck overreads the Compensation Statute. While the Compensation Statute bars local unit public employers from paying its elected officials at an hourly rate, it does not prevent local public employers from classifying an elected official as being part-time or full-time…
It is true that in certain roles, people may be paid a salary regardless of hours worked or the amount of work completed. Elected officials’ hours ebb and flow with demand, which the Compensation Statute recognizes. But this does not mean that by virtue of being paid a salary, local elected officials cannot also be considered part-time employees. Therefore, we read Section 36-2-5-13(b) as only requiring Huck’s compensation to be on a salary schedule. And while Huck is correct that the County cannot compensate him based on the number of hours worked, nor are they required to ask him to report his hours worked, the statute does not prevent the County from identifying his role as part-time. For this reason, we do not find any relief for Huck in the Compensation Statute.
Conclusion
A preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary equitable remedy that should be granted with caution,” Combs, 853 N.E.2d at 160, and thus an injunction should be issued only where the moving party has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it has a reasonable likelihood of success at trial. Members of Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. Planned Parenthood Great Nw., Haw., Alaska, Ind., Ky., Inc., 211 N.E.3d 957, 964 (Ind. 2023). Indiana Code Section 5-10-8-1 enables local unit public employers to classify their employees and deny insurance benefits to part-time employees. The County was within its power to first designate Huck as a part-time employee and subsequently exclude him from group health insurance. For these reasons, Huck has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he is likely to succeed on the merits. The trial court, therefore, abused its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction. Great Lakes Anesthesia, P.C., 99 N.E.3d at 268. We therefore reverse the trial court, vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If we are mistaken in our interpretation, the General Assembly remains free to revise its statutes to provide more clarity.
Slaughter and Molter, JJ., concur.
Rush C.J., concurs in the judgment with separate opinion.
Goff, J., dissents with separate opinion.
Rush, C.J., concurring in the judgment.
The Court concludes that Perry County may classify Keith Huck, an elected official, as a part-time employee and exclude him from the county’s group insurance plan on that basis. Accordingly, the Court vacates the preliminary injunction in Huck’s favor. I agree with this outcome but for different reasons. The statute on group plans for local-unit public employees does not cover elected officials. And even if it does, Huck demonstrated only financial harm for which the remedy is damages. Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment.
….
I. Huck failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success at trial because he is not an “employee” for purposes of the statute on local-unit group plans.
….
II. Huck failed to demonstrate that losing insurance benefits posed a risk of irreparable harm.
….
Goff, J., dissenting.
Keith Huck is an elected member of the Perry County Common Council. Perry County (or the County), as a local unit public employer, provides and pays in part group health-insurance coverage for employees, retired employees, and their dependent family members. In June 2023, the Perry County Board of Commissioners publicly voted to discontinue health-insurance coverage for its part-time employees effective January 2024. See Ind. Code § 5-10-8-2.6(b). Because Huck only worked an average of nine hours per month as a councilman, Perry County concluded that he was a part-time employee, and he and his wife lost health-insurance coverage. Huck sought a preliminary injunction against Perry County, arguing that if the County is going to provide health insurance to its employees, it must do the same for him because, as an elected official, he is an “employee,” no matter how many hours he works. See I.C. § 5-10-8- 1(1). The trial court agreed and granted the preliminary injunction. In reversing, this Court concludes that the County has the statutory authority to identify Huck’s role as part-time and to exclude him from coverage. Ante, at 2.
I disagree. As an elected official, Huck is an “employee,” not a “parttime” employee that the County may exclude from group health insurance. See I.C. § 5-10-8-1(1). And Huck’s compensation, which includes health insurance, cannot be reduced based on hours worked. See I.C. §§ 36-2-5-13(a), (b).
…