Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 22-9-1-1 (2026)
Title of chapter
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. This chapter shall be known as the Indiana Civil Rights Law.
Formerly: Acts 1961, c.208, s.1; Acts 1963, c.173, s.1; Acts 1971, P.L.357, SEC.1. As amended by P.L.86-2018, SEC.191.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Patricia D. Rush v. McDonald Corp., Sharon Funston, & William R. Rose, 966 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1992).
Patricia D. Rush v. McDonald Corp., Sharon Funston, & William R. Rose, 966 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1992). “Ind.Code § 22-9-1-1 et seq. 12 . At this same time, the defendants also made a motion for Rule 11 sanctions.”
Montgomery v. Bd. of Trs. of Purdue Univ., 849 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. 2006). “The Indiana Civil Rights Law ("ICRL"), Indiana Code sections 22-9-1-1 through XX-X-X-XX, prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry and applies to most private and public employers in Indiana.”
MC Welding & MacHining Co. v. Kotwa, 845 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Code §§ 22-9-2-1 to -11, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, and Ind. Code §§ 22-9-1-1 to -18, which prohibits, among other things, discrimination based upon disability.”
Fort Wayne Metro. Human Relations Comm'n v. Marathon Gas Station, 926 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “DISCUSSION AND DECISION The Commission was created pursuant to the authority granted by the Indiana *1088 Civil Rights Law, IC. §§ 22-9-1-1 through 22-9-1-18. Among other things, I.”
Americanos v. State, 728 N.E.2d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “, Indiana Civil Rights Act, Ind. Code § 22-9-1-1 et seq. If Americanos believes he was treated differently than the other applicants, such a claim would be more appropriately brought under legislation designed to protect against discrimination such as Title VII of the Civil…”
Indiana Civil Rights Comm'n v. S. Indiana Gas & Elec. Co., 553 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. 1990). “" Following application for the job of "meter man," Leslie was examined by SIGECO's physician who discovered, during the examination, that she suffered from a congenital spinal defect known as sacralization of the L-5 vertebra and that she therefore was "unfit for heavy work.”
Myers v. Moyars, 667 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 2000e and Indiana Code § 22-9-1-1. Myers abandoned the remedies of the second count.”
Rush v. McDonald's Corp., 760 F. Supp. 1349 (S.D. Ind. 1991). “Code § 22-9-1-1 et seq.), and that as a result of the defendants' actions she suffered severe mental distress.”
Nieman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 706 F. Supp. 2d 897 (C.D. Ill. 2010). “(Whistle-blower Act); the Indiana Civil Rights Law, Ind.Code §§ 22-9-1-1 et seq.; and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich.”
Indiana Bell Tel. Co. Inc. v. Boyd, 421 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). “The public policy recognized by the legislature in enacting the Indiana Civil Rights Law, Ind. Code 22-9-1-1 through 22-9-1-13, as it relates to matters touching upon employment, is stated in Ind.”
Indiana Civil Rights Comm'n v. Kightlinger & Gray, 567 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). “Ind.Code 22-9-1-1 et seq. The ICRC denied the motion to dismiss and concluded that "[dJur-ing the period relevant to the Complaint of Discrimination the relationship between the parties was that of an employment".”
Robison v. Dana Corp., 656 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “…the trial court did not err in affirming the ICRC's decision. Judgment affirmed. KIRSCH and STATON, JJ., concur. . Ind.Code 22-9-1-1 et seq. -”
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.