Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 22-2-4-4 (2026)
Failure to pay; fines and penalties; damages
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 4. Every corporation, limited liability company, company, association, firm, or person who shall fail for ten (10) days after demand of payment has been made to pay employees for their labor, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, shall be liable to such employee for the full value of his labor, to which shall be added a penalty of one dollar ($1) for each succeeding day, not exceeding double the amount of wages due, and a reasonable attorney's fee, to be recovered in a civil action and collectable without relief.
Formerly: Acts 1911, c.68, s.4. As amended by P.L.144-1986, SEC.6; P.L.8-1993, SEC.272.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Helmuth v. Distance Learning Sys. Indiana, Inc., 837 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Helmuth v. Distance Learning Sys. Indiana, Inc., 837 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Helmuth filed a complaint against Distance seeking unpaid commissions and un-reimbursed employment expenses.”
Die & Mold, Inc. v. W., 448 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). “50, the latter two items by authority of Ind.Code 22-2-4-4, ISSUES The following issues are presented on appeal: I.”
Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Brant, 489 N.E.2d 933 (Ind. 1986). “v. Brant (1985), Ind. App., 479 N.E.2d 1336 .”
Meyers v. Meyers, 846 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “held that termination of an employee solely for filing an action for payment of wages pursuant to Ind.Code § 22-2-4-4 would violate the rule of Frampton .”
Meyers v. Meyers, 861 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. 2007). “1986), in which we held that, regardless of Brant’s allegations regarding status as an employee or independent contractor, the employment at will doctrine precludes him from asserting an action for wrongful discharge in retaliation for asserting a claim for unpaid wages under…”
In re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 273 F.R.D. 424 (N.D. Ind. 2008). “Indiana Indiana plaintiffs Roger Riewe, David Stacy, Jeff Shelton, Harold Bennett, and Rodney Owens, all former FedEx Ground pickup and delivery drivers, seek certification of a statewide Indiana class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) to pursue claims…”
Jones v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 551 F. Supp. 2d 848 (S.D. Iowa 2008). “Plaintiffs now assert that the claim for unpaid wages and overtime actually arises under Indiana Code §§ 22-2-4-4 and 22-2-5-2. Indiana Code § 22-2-4-4 provides: Every corporation, limited liability company, company, association, firm, or person who shall fail for ten (10) days…”
Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Brant, 479 N.E.2d 1336 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). “CODE § 22-2-4-4. [1] Consequently, termination of Brant solely for filing the small claims action, would violate the Frampton rule [2] if Brant were an employee as opposed to an independent contractor.”
In re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., Emp. Practices Litig., 283 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Ind. 2012). “Indiana Indiana plaintiffs Roger Riewe, David Stacy, Jeff Shelton, Harold Bennett, and Rodney Owens, all former FedEx Ground pickup and delivery drivers, seek certification of a statewide Indiana class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) to pursue claims…”
Gehbauer v. Emas, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1374 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). “The Appellants are seeking to recover their unpaid wages as provided by Ind.Code §§ 22-2-4-4, 22-2-5-2. 1 They assert that *1376 “the payments for wages for employees who are on call during so called ‘meal breaks’ is apparently a case of first impression in Indiana.”
Gazarkiewicz v. Town of Kingsford Heights, 264 F. Supp. 2d 735 (N.D. Ind. 2003). “Count VI of Plaintiffs complaint alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for accrued vacation time as of his termination date in violation of Ind.Code 22-2-4-4. 5 Kingsford Heights town ordinance 2-16-020 states that “full time personnel are eligible for paid vacation…”
Hertog v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2023). “Hertog has alleged claims for breach of implied contract (Count I), wrongful termination (Count II), negligence (Count III), violations of Kentucky civil rights law (Count IV), religious and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA, respectively (Count V), and fines and…”
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.