Ind. Code » Title 22
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 22-2-4-4 (2025)

Failure to pay; fines and penalties; damages

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Helmuth v. Distance Learning Sys. Indiana, Inc., 837 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 4× “v. Brant (1985), Ind. App., 479 N.E.2d 1336 .”
Meyers v. Meyers, 846 N.E.2d 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 3× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 2× “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., No. 4:23-cv-00010 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 13, 2023). · cites it 12× “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…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.