Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 22-2-9-1 (2026)
Definitions
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. Whenever used in this chapter:
(a) The term "employer" means and includes every person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, receiver, or other officer of any court of this state, and any agent or officer of any of the above mentioned classes, employing any person in this state.
(b) The term "wages" means all amounts at which the labor or service rendered is recompensed, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or in any other method of calculating such amount.
Formerly: Acts 1939, c.95, s.1. As amended by P.L.144-1986, SEC.13; P.L.8-1993, SEC.276.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Design Indus., Inc. v. Cassano, 776 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Design Indus., Inc. v. Cassano, 776 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Indiana Code § 22-2-9-1 (b) (regarding wage claims); see also Licocci v.”
Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2008). “The Managers seek to recover on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Indiana’s Wage Claims Statute (Indiana Code § 22-2-9-1 et seq.) and Wage Payment Statute (Indiana Code § 22-2-5-1 et seq.”
Williams v. Riverside Cmty. Corr. Corp., 846 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “On November 23, 2008, Williams filed suit against Riverside under Indiana Code § 22-2-9-1 et seq. (the "Wage Claims Statute"), 2 arguing that she was entitled to 7.”
Brandy L. Walczak, Individually & on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Labor Works - Fort Wayne LLC, d/b/a Labor Works, 983 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2013). “at § 5. Like the Wage Payment Act, the Wage Claims Act has been amended several times since its enactment, but these amendments have been largely cosmetic.”
Highhouse v. Midwest Orthopedic Inst., P.C., 807 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2004). “" I.C. § 22-2-9-1. Failure to pay subjects the employer to a penalty of up to double the unpaid wage and attorney's fees.”
Thomas v. H & R Block E. Enter., Inc., 630 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2011). “First, she argues that EOS compensation is a wage because it is composed entirely of commissions, and because Indiana Code § 22-2-9-1 (b) unambiguously includes “commission” in the definition of wages.”
Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 (1989). “48, 1M39m-l to 39m-15 (1987); Ind. Code §§22-2-9-1 to *110 22-2-9-7 (1988); Iowa Code §§91A.”
Brown v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Indiana, LP, 534 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2008). “, and the Indiana Wage Claim Statute, Ind.Code § 22-2-9-1 et seq. The district court granted Family Dollar’s motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim and the state claim for an unpaid incentive bonus, and dismissed the remaining state claims without prejudice.”
Berry v. Crawford, 990 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. 2013). “2011) (quoting I.C. § 22-2-9-1(b); citing Highhouse v. Midwest Orthopedic Inst.”
Lemon v. Wishard Health Servs., 902 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Ind.Code § 22-2-9-1 et seq. 2 . Wishard filed a motion to strike Lemon's reply brief.”
Treat v. Tom Kelley Buick Pontiac Gmc, Inc., 646 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2011). “, or whether their claims against Kelley arose under a different Indiana wage recovery law, known as the Wage Claims Statute, Ind.Code § 22-2-9-1 et seq. The district court concluded that the Treats erroneously brought their claim under the Payment Statute rather than the Claims…”
Panwar v. Access Therapies, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 2d 948 (S.D. Ind. 2013). “” I.C. § 22-2-9-1 (emphasis added). The money owed to Mr.”
— Ind. Code § 22-2-9-1(a) — 2 cases
Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schs., 840 N.E.2d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Duvall v. Cardon & Assocs., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 22-2-9-1(b) — 11 cases
Design Indus., Inc. v. Cassano, 776 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Indiana Code § 22-2-9-1 (b) (regarding wage claims); see also Licocci v.”
Williams v. Riverside Cmty. Corr. Corp., 846 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “On November 23, 2008, Williams filed suit against Riverside under Indiana Code § 22-2-9-1 et seq. (the "Wage Claims Statute"), 2 arguing that she was entitled to 7.”
Berry v. Crawford, 990 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. 2013). “2011) (quoting I.C. § 22-2-9-1(b); citing Highhouse v. Midwest Orthopedic Inst.”
Quezare v. Byrider Fin., Inc., 941 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Sheaff Brock Inv. Advisors, LLC v. David Morton, 7 N.E.3d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
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.