Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1 (2026)

Payment; voluntarily leaving employment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 1. (a) Every person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the amount due the employee. The payment shall be made in lawful money of the United States, by negotiable check, draft, or money order, or by electronic transfer to the financial institution designated by the employee. Any contract in violation of this subsection is void.

     (b) Payment shall be made for all wages earned to a date not more than ten (10) business days prior to the date of payment. However, this subsection does not prevent payments being made at shorter intervals than specified in this subsection, nor repeal any law providing for payments at shorter intervals. However, if an employee voluntarily leaves employment, either permanently or temporarily, the employer shall not be required to pay the employee an amount due the employee until the next usual and regular day for payment of wages, as established by the employer. If an employee leaves employment voluntarily, and without the employee's whereabouts or address being known to the employer, the employer is not subject to section 2 of this chapter until:

(1) ten (10) business days have elapsed after the employee has made a demand for the wages due the employee; or

(2) the employee has furnished the employer with the employee's address where the wages may be sent or forwarded.

Formerly: Acts 1933, c.47, s.1; Acts 1971, P.L.350, SEC.1. As amended by P.L.216-1989, SEC.2; P.L.8-1993, SEC.273; P.L.51-2007, SEC.2.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 138 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2002).
St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2002). · cites it 17× “Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1. If an employer fails to make payment of wages in accordance with this section, then the employer: [A]s liquidated damages for such failure, [shall] pay to such employee for each day that the amount due to him remains unpaid ten percent (10%) of the amount…”
Prime Mortg. USA, Inc. v. Nichols, 885 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 9× “The basis of Nichols’ income from Prime Mortgage constitutes “wages” within the meaning of Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1 et seq. 58. Pursuant to Ind.”
Helmuth v. Distance Learning Sys. Indiana, Inc., 837 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “Still, Helmuth alleges that the trial court's judgment is contrary to law because Distance admitted during trial that, due to an accounting oversight, it had failed to pay him $500 in commissions he had earned while employed by Distance.”
Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schs., 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. 2007). · cites it 6× “Subsection 1(a) provides that “[e]very person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each employee at least semimonthly or biweekly, if requested, the…”
Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “) and Wage Payment Statute (Indiana Code § 22-2-5-1 et seq.) for allegedly unpaid bonuses and wages.”
City of Lawrence Utilites Serv. Bd., City of Lawrence, Indiana, & Mayor Dean Jessup, Individually & in his Off. Capacity v. Carlton E. Curry, 68 N.E.3d 581 (Ind. 2017). · cites it 4× “Ind. Code §§ 22-2-5-1 , -2. It is clear from the record that Curry has not actually been working for the City executive authority and the ability to appoint staff that share policy philosophy and loyalty, the proper place to amend subsection 5(d) is not with the appellate…”
Lee v. Fresenius Med. Care, Inc., 741 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 4× “For example, in Indiana, a statute provides that "`employees, upon separation from employment, must be paid the amount due them at their next and usual payday.”
Hollis v. Def. Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “See Ind.Code §§ 22-2-5-1; 22-2-9-2. The parties dispute whether this statement is dicta and debate the precedential value *540 of footnotes generally.”
Wank v. Saint Francis Coll., 740 N.E.2d 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “In support of his contention that severance pay is a wage under the statute, Wank cites to Black's Law Dictionary, which defines wages as [al compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.”
Berry v. Crawford, 990 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. 2013). · cites it 6× “Hence, I would hold Plaintiffs’ wage payment claims justiciable and I would affirm the trial court’s order to the *429 extent it finds Defendants violated Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1. RUSH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.”
McCausland v. Walter USA, Inc., 918 N.E.2d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “2007); Ind.Code §§ 22-2-5-1 to 22-25-83. Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1(a) (2004) provides that "[elvery person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each…”
Tobin v. Ruman, 819 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “" Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1(a). The statute defines "the amount due each employee" as "wages.”
— Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1(1) — 1 case
Helmuth v. Distance Learning Sys. Indiana, Inc., 837 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Still, Helmuth alleges that the trial court's judgment is contrary to law because Distance admitted during trial that, due to an accounting oversight, it had failed to pay him $500 in commissions he had earned while employed by Distance.”
— Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1(a) — 8 cases
Tobin v. Ruman, 819 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “" Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1(a). The statute defines "the amount due each employee" as "wages.”
St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2002). “Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1. If an employer fails to make payment of wages in accordance with this section, then the employer: [A]s liquidated damages for such failure, [shall] pay to such employee for each day that the amount due to him remains unpaid ten percent (10%) of the amount…”
Berry v. Crawford, 990 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. 2013). “Hence, I would hold Plaintiffs’ wage payment claims justiciable and I would affirm the trial court’s order to the *429 extent it finds Defendants violated Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1. RUSH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.”
McCausland v. Walter USA, Inc., 918 N.E.2d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “2007); Ind.Code §§ 22-2-5-1 to 22-25-83. Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1(a) (2004) provides that "[elvery person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or association, their trustees, lessees, or receivers appointed by any court, doing business in Indiana, shall pay each…”
— Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1(b) — 11 cases
St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2002). “Ind.Code § 22-2-5-1. If an employer fails to make payment of wages in accordance with this section, then the employer: [A]s liquidated damages for such failure, [shall] pay to such employee for each day that the amount due to him remains unpaid ten percent (10%) of the amount…”
Schwartz v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp., 762 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Hollis v. Def. Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “See Ind.Code §§ 22-2-5-1; 22-2-9-2. The parties dispute whether this statement is dicta and debate the precedential value *540 of footnotes generally.”
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.