What Indiana Employers and Employees Should Know About AI in 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed how employers recruit and hire. In 2025, many Indiana companies now use AI-driven tools to screen résumés, conduct automated interviews, and even assess personality traits. These systems promise efficiency and objectivity, but they also create legal risks for employers and raise fairness concerns for job seekers.
Why AI in Hiring Matters
Employers often turn to AI to handle large applicant pools. A program can scan hundreds of résumés in seconds, flag keywords, and generate rankings. Automated video interviews can measure tone, facial expressions, and word choice. While convenient, these methods may unintentionally disadvantage certain groups of applicants.
Recent guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) warns that AI systems must still comply with federal anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Indiana courts are expected to follow suit as disputes arise.
Risks for Employers
Employers using AI need to understand:
Bias and disparate impact. If an AI tool disproportionately screens out older workers, applicants with disabilities, or members of a particular race or gender, that could lead to a lawsuit.
Failure to accommodate. Applicants with disabilities may need alternative application methods. Refusing to offer accommodations can create liability.
Over-reliance on technology. Courts will scrutinize decisions made solely by algorithms without meaningful human oversight.
Guidance for Employers
Indiana businesses can reduce risk by:
Auditing AI tools. Regularly test whether hiring software produces biased outcomes.
Maintaining human review. Use AI to assist, not replace, human decision-makers.
Updating policies. Clearly state nondiscrimination and accommodation practices in hiring policies.
Training staff. Ensure HR teams understand the strengths and limits of AI tools.
Rights for Job Seekers
Applicants in Indiana should be aware:
If you believe you were unfairly rejected by an automated system, you may request accommodations or challenge the process.
Keep records of application steps, communications, and unusual rejections.
Consulting with an employment attorney can clarify whether you have a discrimination claim.
Closing Thoughts
AI can improve efficiency, but it doesn’t eliminate an employer’s responsibility to ensure fairness. Indiana workers deserve equal access to job opportunities, and employers need to use these tools carefully. At Goodin Abernathy LLP, I work with both employers and employees to navigate the legal challenges of AI in hiring. If you have concerns about how AI impacted your hiring process, don’t hesitate to reach out.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please call us or complete this form to request a free consultation.
In 2024, Indiana lawmakers passed a controversial piece of legislation—Senate Enrolled Act 202 (SEA 202)—that directly affects the tenure process and ongoing employment of faculty at public colleges and universities. As an attorney who regularly represents employees in complex workplace issues, I’ve been closely monitoring this new law and its potential consequences. SEA 202 has already sparked a legal challenge, raising important questions about constitutional rights, academic freedom, and employment security in the public education sector.
In this post, I’ll explain what the law does, why it’s being challenged in federal court, and how this development could impact Indiana’s reputation as a place to attract and retain top-tier academic talent.
What Does SEA 202 Do?
SEA 202 requires that all tenured faculty at Indiana’s public colleges and universities undergo performance reviews every five years. That in itself may not sound controversial—accountability and performance standards are common in most professions. But the law goes further. It mandates that tenure or promotion may be denied to faculty who are “unlikely to promote free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity.”
In addition, it introduces a mechanism for students, colleagues, or others to file complaints if they believe a faculty member is not upholding these vague and politically charged principles. This complaint process may trigger administrative reviews that could influence a professor’s job security, compensation, and academic standing.
Supporters of the law, primarily Republican legislators, argue that SEA 202 is needed to curb what they perceive as ideological homogeneity in higher education. Their stated goal is to ensure that Indiana campuses are places where a diversity of viewpoints can be expressed and debated. But critics—including many professors and legal scholars—see this as legislative overreach that infringes on academic independence.
The Legal Challenge: Professors Push Back
Not long after the law was signed by Governor Eric Holcomb, two professors from Purdue University Fort Wayne filed a federal lawsuit against the state. The plaintiffs, Steven A. Carr and David G. Schuster, allege that SEA 202 violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They are represented by the ACLU of Indiana.
According to the complaint, the law essentially forces professors to include fringe or debunked theories in their curricula out of fear that not doing so could be interpreted as suppressing “intellectual diversity.” This, they argue, compels them to engage in speech they would otherwise avoid as academic professionals. That’s where the First Amendment challenge comes in.
The Fourteenth Amendment claim centers on vagueness. What exactly constitutes a failure to promote free expression or diversity of thought? The professors argue that these undefined terms give university administrators overly broad discretion, making faculty vulnerable to arbitrary or politically motivated disciplinary action.
The State’s Response: “No First Amendment in the Classroom”?
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office responded to the lawsuit with an argument that is deeply troubling to many in the academic community: that public university faculty do not have First Amendment protections when teaching in the classroom. The state claims that instruction delivered at public institutions constitutes “government speech” and therefore can be regulated by the state without violating constitutional protections.
This claim cuts to the heart of the debate over academic freedom. If upheld, it could give legislatures broad authority to shape curriculum and penalize faculty whose teaching doesn’t align with the prevailing political winds.
What This Means for Indiana’s Higher Education System
As an Indiana employment lawyer, I worry that SEA 202 could have a chilling effect on higher education in our state. Academic talent is mobile. Professors, particularly those with specialized skills or national reputations, can—and do—choose where they work based on job security, research freedom, and institutional support for intellectual independence.
If this law is upheld and aggressively enforced, Indiana may find it more difficult to attract or retain the kind of high-caliber faculty that contributes to our state’s academic excellence. Public institutions could also face increased litigation risk, administrative costs, and reputational damage.
For those of us who assist clients navigating employment disputes, these types of laws create uncertainty. Professors facing tenure denials or disciplinary actions under SEA 202 will almost certainly seek legal advice. At the same time, universities and college administrators will need clear, lawful procedures to implement performance reviews that comply with constitutional protections.
Conclusion: Watch This Case Closely
As of this writing, the federal court has not yet ruled on the merits of the lawsuit filed by the Purdue professors. But regardless of the outcome, SEA 202 represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing national debate about the role of politics in education, employee rights in the public sector, and the boundaries of academic freedom.
At Goodin Abernathy LLP, we are committed to staying at the forefront of these evolving legal issues. If you are a faculty member, university administrator, or public employee with concerns about SEA 202 or your rights under Indiana and federal law, I invite you to speak with us. Visit our website’s Indiana Employment Lawyer page for more information or to schedule a consultation.
A non-compete agreement is a legally binding contract that employers often use to protect their business interests. In this type of agreement, an employee agrees not to work for a competing company or start their own competing business for a certain period of time after leaving the employer’s company. The main purpose of a non-compete agreement is to protect the employer’s trade secrets, and confidential information, as well as its relationships with customers and clients. However, it’s important to note that the enforceability of non-compete agreements can vary depending on the specific language of the agreement and the laws of the state in which it is signed.
The FTC estimates that about 1 in 5 working Americans (30 million people) are bound by a non-compete agreement. These agreements can affect all ranges of the work force, from fast food employees to highly compensated executives. In proposing its rule to ban these onerous agreements, the FTC states:
‘By preventing workers across the labor force from pursuing better opportunities that offer higher pay or better working conditions, and by preventing employers from hiring qualified workers bound by these contracts, noncompetes hurt workers and harm competition.”
When workers are prevented from freely moving to a better opportunity, it stifles not only wages, but new businesses and new ideas. When workers are confronted with the opportunity to take a new job, they often feel stuck because they are bound by a noncompete agreement. The FTC estimates that the proposed rule would increase wages across all industries and job levels by $250 to $296 billion dollars per year.
Non-Compete Agreements in Indiana
Indiana has a long history of not favoring noncompete agreements; however, they are enforceable in Indiana. Clients often contact us wanting to know if they can get out of their noncompete agreement. Sadly, the answer they often receive is that while their agreement may not be enforceable, the only way to determine that is to litigate the issue, which can be very expensive. Furthermore, most employers put provisions in their noncompete agreements that employees can be responsible for the employer’s attorneys’ fees if they challenge the agreement and lose.
The new rule currently proposed by the FTC would ban employers from enforcing existing noncompete agreements, as well as prevent them from using them in the future. Employers would also have to notify their workers that the agreements are rescinded and no longer enforceable.
Conclusion
In summary, the FTC estimates the new rule would: 1. Increase workers’ earnings by nearly $300 billion per year. 2. Save consumers up to $148 billion annually on health care costs. And, 3. Double the number of companies founded by a former worker in the same industry. If you are interested in commenting on the proposed rule, you can submit your comment here:
If you are currently working under a noncompete agreement, or have questions about entering in to one, you should contact an experienced employment law attorney so that you know your rights and obligations. Please feel free to call me for a free consultation.
Hostile work environment claims often involve sexual harassment, but not always. A workplace may also be hostile based on race, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age or some other form of discrimination.
How Do You Prove a Work Environment is Hostile?
In order to prove a hostile work environment, an employee must be able to demonstrate that the discrimination is, “severe and pervasive.”
This has been the standard for in the United States since 1972, when the Supreme Court decided Rogers v EEOC. “Mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII.”
Rogers remains the law of the land in the US. However, every case must be examined on its own merits.
If the conduct is so outrageous, it is possible that just one instance of discrimination could be sufficient to bring a claim and be compensated.
What Should You Do If You Think You’re a Victim of a Hostile Work Environment?
If you suspect a hostile work environment, it is important to seek out an attorney who practices in the area of employment law to get a consultation and be certain of your rights and responsibilities.
It also makes a difference where the hostility is coming from. Is it a co-worker or is it a manager who is discriminating? If discrimination comes from a co-worker, it must be reported, so the company can take appropriate action against that employee.
Suppose it is a manager that is creating a hostile work environment. In that case, he is acting on behalf of the employer, and it is more difficult for the company to deny that they knew about the behavior.
How do you know if the behavior is creating a hostile environment?
To determine whether the behavior is creating a hostile work environment the question to ask is, “whether the condition of employment is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.”
If you are still unsure, it’s best to contact a law firm in the state of Indiana about the workplace harassment you’ve experienced. They will be able to help you determine if it constitutes a ‘hostile work environment’.
Riders in Hamilton County are offered beautifully designed tunnels and bridges where the Monon Trail intersects with busy roads. From the north beginning at SR 32, there is a well-designed bridge that allows riders safe passage over the busy state road. As riders head south, there is another bridge over 146th St., and then they are tunneled under US 31, 126th and 116th Streets. Southbound trail riders are again tunneled under I-465 as they enter Marion County and the City of Indianapolis.
The next 4-lane road that the trail user will encounter is the infamous crossing at 86th St. in Nora. At this location, 86th St. is a heavily travelled, divided 4-lane street, with numerous businesses on either side. Anyone who has experienced this crossing on a bicycle, or on foot, knows of the dangers. There are fast moving cars on 86th St., who are not expecting a large pedestrian crossing, and there are cars turning in and out of shopping centers on both sides of 86th St. Those drivers are often looking the other direction for cars, never looking to see if there might be a pedestrian trying to cross the street. I, myself, have seen numerous close calls at this crossing.
A similarly dangerous intersection that was recently enhanced with a beautiful pedestrian bridge was where the Monon Trail crosses 38th St. I am very familiar with this project, as it was just a mile or so from Goodin Abernathy LLP. The bridge allows trail users to safely pass over 38th St. without the risk of getting hit by a car. With the price of gas at all-time highs, and more people using the trails to commute to work, it is time to invest some of the Federal Government’s infrastructure money in to alternate forms of transportation. If the City of Indianapolis is going to encourage people to use the Monon, they need to make it safe for its users. Indianapolis is a world class city, and the Monon is a Hall of Fame trail. In honor of Indy cycling advocate, Frank Radaker, let’s make it safe.
As an avid cyclist and frequent bike commuter from his home in Carmel to our office at 301 E. 38th Street, Chip Clark has experience representing cyclists who have been injured by the negligence of others. If you or someone you know has been injured while cycling, call Chip for a free, no obligation, consultation.
