Using what’s known as “salary history bans,” governments at the state and local level are limiting employers’ ability to consider a candidate’s previous wages when making an employment decision. The breadth of these bans varies by jurisdiction, but the concept remains the same: under a salary history ban, an employer cannot explicitly ask a prospective employee what they earned in a previous job.
Judgment for the Hamilton County Convention Center’s owner was upheld by a divided appeals panel Thursday in a former employee’s defamation suit. It’s the latest chapter in a long-running litigation saga involving cross-claims of unpaid wages and employee theft.
A decades-long sentence has been affirmed for a woman who stole personal items from her former employer after being told she wouldn’t receive back wages after the business went under.
A study by the Indiana Public Defender Commission is highlighting what officials say is a flawed system that encourages contract public defenders to increase their private caseload to cover their overhead costs, which eat the bulk of the compensation they receive for representing indigent defendants.
The Supreme Court is leaving in place a decision that employers can’t use past salary history to justify a pay disparity between male and female employees.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part a judgment issued to a former medical device company employee, granting him an additional award for unpaid wages and remanding for the calculation of additional attorney fees it concluded he is entitled to.
In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, busy dockets are common across all case types. Recent data confirmed that trend specifically with respect to employment law, finding the Indianapolis-based courts are among the busiest in employment litigation for all of the Midwest.
An Indianapolis church must pay its former pastor $80,000 after the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the enforcement a judgment stemming from the church’s failure to pay the clergyman his regular salary.
The U.S. Women’s National Team did not lose a match in route to their fourth World Cup title. When they returned home, the nation celebrated the team’s victory with numerous national TV appearances and a ticker tape parade. However, while the team reveled in victory, one battle stood ahead — not on the field, but in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
On April 3, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed Senate Enrolled Act 231, excluding a direct seller from the definition of “employee” under the state’s minimum wage law (Indiana Code § 22-2-2 et. seq.) and from the definition of “employment” under the state’s unemployment compensation system (I.C. 22-4 et. seq.), except under certain conditions. The law took effect July 1.
We all know the general rule about overtime: the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employees must be paid 150 percent of their standard rate of pay, or “time and a half,” for working more than 40 hours per week, but certain employees, especially executive or managerial employees, are exempt. In practice, the line between exempt and non-exempt employees is sometimes unclear, especially with respect to restaurant and retail employees.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated in part a Southern District Court’s decision, asking it to reconsider whether an amended Indiana wage-deduction law could be retroactively applied to claims made against a former employer for withholding employee wages to rent work uniforms.
Steak n Shake is on the hook for a $7.7 million judgment after a jury found the Indianapolis-based burger chain improperly failed to pay overtime to 286 restaurant managers in the St. Louis market.
A northern Indiana man who sought wages for lunch breaks he didn’t take has won his claim, although a judge awarded him just $35. Joe Lehman was seeking $3,543 he said Thor Industries’ Postle Aluminum division owed him for lunch breaks he didn’t take while working as a truck driver for about a year and a half, but an Elkhart County magistrate granted him a judgment of only $35, plus $125 in court costs.
Claims of workers being harassed or denied opportunities because of their race, national origin, gender, age or sexual orientation are continuing despite diversity in the workforce and employers’ heightened need for labor amid low unemployment.
A man failed to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that a change in the Wage Payment Statute that occurred during his employment should not be applied retroactively.
Google faces a new lawsuit accusing it of gender-based pay discrimination. A lawyer representing three female former Google employees is seeking class action status for the claim.