Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 22-2-9-2 (2026)
Discharge of employee; unpaid wages; payment; labor disputes
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. (a) Whenever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular pay day for pay period in which separation occurred: Provided, however, That this provision shall not apply to railroads in the payment by them to their employees.
(b) In the event of the suspension of work, as the result of an industrial dispute, the wages and compensation earned and unpaid at the time of such suspension shall become due and payable at the next regular pay day, including, without abatement or reduction, all amounts due all persons whose work has been suspended as a result of such industrial dispute.
Formerly: Acts 1939, c.95, s.2; Acts 1969, c.62, s.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · 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). “I.C. § 22-2-9-2(a)(b). By contrast, the Wage Payment Statute references current employees and those who have voluntarily left employment, either permanently or temporarily.”
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). “About nine months later, Labor Works moved for summary judgment, arguing Walczak’s claim properly arose under the Wage Claims Act because she was “separated from the payroll” within the meaning of Indiana Code § 22-2-9-2 at the time her complaint was filed.”
Dorothea Bragg, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. Kittle's Home Furnishings, Inc., 52 N.E.3d 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “See Ind.Code § 22-2-9-2. 6 . We also note that, generally speaking, all commissions are bonus-like in nature, and that Bragg point's to no relevant authority or designated evidence which would suggest otherwise, 7 .”
Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schs., 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. 2007). “That statute states in pertinent part: “[wjhenever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular pay day for pay period in which separation occurred.”
Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 873 N.E.2d 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Here, the Wage Claims Statute, Ind.Code § 22-2-9-2(a), provides that “[wjhenever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular pay day for pay period in which separation…”
Hollis v. Def. Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “I.C. § 22-2-9-2(a), (b). By contrast, the Wage Payment Statute references current employees and those who have voluntarily left employment, either permanently or temporarily.”
Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2008). “” See Ind.Code § 22-2-9-2-(a); Steele, 766 N.E.”
J Squared, Inc. v. Herndon, 822 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Indiana Code Section 22-2-9-2, the Wage Claims Statute, provides in relevant part as follows: "Whenever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at [the] regular pay day for [the] pay…”
Melton v. Tippecanoe Cnty., 838 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2016). “§ 207 (a), and the Indiana Wage Claim law, Ind. Code § 22-2-9-2 (a). The County subsequently removed the case to federal court.”
Bryan Alexander, Karl Cameron, William Love, Charlie Lovins, Kevin McMurray & Matt Oelker, on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated v. Linkmeyer Dev. II, LLC, 119 N.E.3d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “In determining whether the Wage Payment Statute or the Wage Claims Statute applied to Steele's claim, our supreme court explained: Although both the Wage Claims Statute and the Wage Payment Statute set forth two different procedural frameworks for wage disputes, each statute…”
Cox v. Town of Rome City, 764 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “1997) and Indiana Code § 22-2-9-2 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Birch v. Kim, 977 F. Supp. 926 (S.D. Ind. 1997). “4 Failure to Pay Wages for Final Period Plaintiff asserts a separate claim against Defendant for failure to pay wages earned during her final week of employment, the period covering October 6 through October 9, 1996, citing Ind.Code 22-2-9-2(a) and 22-2-5-1. Plaintiff Aff.”
— Ind. Code § 22-2-9-2(a) — 15 cases
Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schs., 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. 2007). “That statute states in pertinent part: “[wjhenever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular pay day for pay period in which separation occurred.”
Hollis v. Def. Sec. Co., 941 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “I.C. § 22-2-9-2(a), (b). By contrast, the Wage Payment Statute references current employees and those who have voluntarily left employment, either permanently or temporarily.”
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). “About nine months later, Labor Works moved for summary judgment, arguing Walczak’s claim properly arose under the Wage Claims Act because she was “separated from the payroll” within the meaning of Indiana Code § 22-2-9-2 at the time her complaint was filed.”
Bryan Alexander, Karl Cameron, William Love, Charlie Lovins, Kevin McMurray & Matt Oelker, on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated v. Linkmeyer Dev. II, LLC, 119 N.E.3d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “In determining whether the Wage Payment Statute or the Wage Claims Statute applied to Steele's claim, our supreme court explained: Although both the Wage Claims Statute and the Wage Payment Statute set forth two different procedural frameworks for wage disputes, each statute…”
Birch v. Kim, 977 F. Supp. 926 (S.D. Ind. 1997). “4 Failure to Pay Wages for Final Period Plaintiff asserts a separate claim against Defendant for failure to pay wages earned during her final week of employment, the period covering October 6 through October 9, 1996, citing Ind.Code 22-2-9-2(a) and 22-2-5-1. Plaintiff Aff.”
— Ind. Code § 22-2-9-2(a)(b) — 4 cases
St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2002). “I.C. § 22-2-9-2(a)(b). By contrast, the Wage Payment Statute references current employees and those who have voluntarily left employment, either permanently or temporarily.”
Dorothea Bragg, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. Kittle's Home Furnishings, Inc., 52 N.E.3d 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “See Ind.Code § 22-2-9-2. 6 . We also note that, generally speaking, all commissions are bonus-like in nature, and that Bragg point's to no relevant authority or designated evidence which would suggest otherwise, 7 .”
Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 873 N.E.2d 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Here, the Wage Claims Statute, Ind.Code § 22-2-9-2(a), provides that “[wjhenever any employer separates any employee from the pay-roll, the unpaid wages or compensation of such employee shall become due and payable at regular pay day for pay period in which separation…”
Hickman v. State, 895 N.E.2d 353 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
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.