periods does not recommend borrowing a ten-year statute of limitations over a two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs further argue that, in its entry for summary judgment, the Court cited the two-year limitations period in Indiana Code Section 34-1-2-1.5 as applicable to retaliation claims and that, because no other Indiana court has held that section applicable to claims of retaliatory discharge, this Court should reconsider its February 7, 1997 entry of summary judgment. Although an empty victory, Plaintiffs are correct: as discussed, supra, the two courts in Indiana to cite to a specific code section for retaliatory discharge have referenced the two-year limitations in Indiana Code Section 34-1-2-2(1). See Scott v. Union Tank Car Co., 402 N.E.2d 992, 993 (Ind.App.1980) (<HOLDING>); Bollenbacher, 934 F.Supp. at 1029. (citing
holding that the twoyear statute of limitations set forth in indcode  341221 governs employees claim that he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim