Failing to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a week.
Forcing employees to work “off the clock.”
Misclassifying employees as independent contractors to avoid overtime and benefits.
Withholding tips or making unlawful deductions.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, workers lose billions each year to wage theft — often more than is stolen in property crimes. In Indiana, low-wage workers, hospitality employees, and construction laborers are especially vulnerable.
Employee Rights Under Indiana and Federal Law
Overtime pay. Most employees are entitled to time-and-a-half wages for hours over 40 in a workweek.
Minimum wage. Indiana follows the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour, but violations still occur.
Recordkeeping. Employers must maintain accurate records of hours worked and pay provided.
For Employees: What to Do if You Suspect Wage Theft
Document everything. Keep detailed records of hours worked, pay received, and communications with your employer.
Ask questions. Sometimes errors are clerical and can be corrected quickly.
Know your rights. Even if you are paid a salary, you may still be entitled to overtime depending on your job duties.
Seek legal advice. An employment lawyer can review your situation and help you recover unpaid wages.
For Employers: Avoiding Wage Theft Claims
Wage theft claims can lead to lawsuits, penalties, and reputational harm. Employers can protect themselves by:
Classifying employees correctly.
Using reliable timekeeping systems.
Training managers on wage and hour laws.
Consulting legal counsel when uncertain about overtime rules.
Real-World Example of Wage Theft
In recent years, Indiana courts have handled multiple cases where restaurant workers were denied proper overtime or where construction companies misclassified employees as “independent contractors.” These cases often end with significant financial penalties for employers.
Conclusion
Wage theft undermines trust, harms workers, and creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Whether you’re an employee who isn’t being paid correctly or an employer seeking to stay compliant, knowing the law is essential.
At Goodin Abernathy LLP, I help workers recover unpaid wages and advise employers on building fair and lawful pay practices. If you believe you’re owed wages or want to make sure your company is compliant, we’re here to help.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please call us or complete this form to request a free consultation.
Are Indiana Non-Competes Still Enforceable in 2025?
Non-compete agreements have long been a point of tension between employers wanting to protect their business and employees wanting the freedom to advance their careers. In 2025, the landscape is shifting quickly. With federal regulators pushing back on non-competes and Indiana courts scrutinizing their enforceability, both employers and employees should know where things stand.
The National Landscape
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently proposed rules that would severely restrict non-compete agreements nationwide. While these rules face legal challenges, they signal a clear trend: non-competes are under attack. Employers who rely on them should review their contracts now.
Indiana Law on Non-Competes
In Indiana, courts traditionally enforce non-compete agreements only if they are:
Reasonable in scope. The restriction must be limited in time and geography.
Protecting a legitimate interest. This might include safeguarding confidential information or customer goodwill.
Not overly restrictive. The agreement cannot prevent an employee from earning a living in their field.
For example, an Indiana court may uphold a one-year restriction preventing a salesperson from contacting former clients in a small region but strike down a three-year statewide ban on working in the industry.
Risks for Employers
If your agreements are too broad, they may not survive a legal challenge. Indiana judges are reluctant to rewrite contracts to make them fairer — instead, they may throw the agreement out entirely. Employers should consider whether less restrictive agreements, such as confidentiality or non-solicitation agreements, might be more effective.
Rights for Employees
If you’re asked to sign a non-compete:
Review it carefully before signing. You may be able to negotiate narrower terms.
Don’t assume it’s automatically enforceable. Courts look at each agreement individually.
If you’re leaving a job and worried about restrictions, seek legal advice before making your next move.
The Bigger Picture
Indiana workers are in high demand, and restrictive covenants can limit mobility. Employers still have tools to protect their businesses, but they must be careful not to overreach.
Conclusion
Non-compete law is evolving quickly in Indiana and across the country. At Goodin Abernathy, I help employers draft enforceable agreements and employees defend their rights when restrictions go too far. If you’re facing questions about a non-compete, now is the time to get clarity before it becomes a costly dispute.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please call us or complete this form to request a free consultation.
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.
RE: Case 1:23-cv-01892-MPB-MKK TUTTLE v. EDISON SCHOOL OF THE ARTS, et al
Indianapolis, IN – We are pleased to announce that a judgment has been entered against Edison School of the Arts, resolving all claims brought on behalf of our client, Nathan Tuttle, who was wrongfully terminated from his role as CEO/Executive Director of the school corporation.
This judgment affirms what we have maintained from the outset: that Mr. Tuttle was treated unfairly and in violation of his civil rights. While no monetary compensation can undo the pain and disruption caused by Edison’s actions, the outcome offers a meaningful sense of validation and accountability. It also brings long-overdue closure to a painful chapter for our client, who has remained steadfast in his pursuit of justice.
We believe this outcome highlights the critical importance of due process, fairness, and transparency in all employment practices – particularly within public institutions. We are grateful for Mr. Tuttle’s courage and trust throughout this process, and we hope this case serves as a reminder of the responsibilities employers have to uphold both the law and the dignity of their employees.
Nathan’s experience also shines a light on the lasting harm that can result when institutions act hastily and without due process – especially in today’s climate. It is our sincere hope that this resolution may serve as a deterrent to similar actions in the future.
Dog bites can result in serious injuries that have lasting physical, emotional, and financial consequences. Certain dog breeds are statistically more likely to be involved in severe biting incidents. For victims of dog bites, understanding their rights and seeking legal assistance can make a significant difference in recovering damages. If you or a loved one has been injured by a dog bite, the experienced attorneys at Goodin Abernathy can help you navigate the legal process and pursue justice.
Breeds Commonly Associated with Dog Bite Incidents
While any dog can bite under certain circumstances, some breeds are more frequently associated with severe injuries due to their size, strength, and protective instincts. Below are a few breeds commonly cited in dog bite cases:
Rottweilers: Rottweilers are known for their strength and protective nature. While they can be loyal and affectionate pets, they require proper training and socialization to prevent aggressive behavior. When improperly trained or mistreated, Rottweilers have the potential to cause severe injuries in bite incidents. Victims of attacks involving Rottweilers often require extensive medical care and rehabilitation.
Pit Bulls: Pit Bulls are another breed frequently associated with severe dog bite injuries. Due to their powerful jaws and tenacity, bites from Pit Bulls can lead to significant trauma, including deep lacerations, fractures, and nerve damage. These incidents often make headlines because of their severity.
German Shepherds: German Shepherds are intelligent and often used as working dogs in law enforcement and security. However, their protective instincts can sometimes lead to aggression, particularly if they feel threatened or perceive danger. Bites from German Shepherds can result in deep puncture wounds and other serious injuries.
Doberman Pinschers: Dobermans are known for their sleek appearance and alert nature. While they can be excellent family dogs when properly trained, they can also become aggressive if not socialized correctly. Their bites are often strong enough to cause substantial injury.
Siberian Huskies: While Huskies are generally friendly and energetic, their high prey drive can sometimes lead to biting incidents. This breed’s size and strength mean that their bites can cause considerable harm, especially to children.
The Physical and Emotional Impact of Dog Bite Injuries
Dog bites often lead to severe injuries, including:
Lacerations and Scarring: Deep wounds that may require stitches or plastic surgery.
Fractures: Especially in cases where the bite involves crushing force.
Infections: Including rabies, cellulitis, and tetanus.
Nerve Damage: Permanent damage to nerves can result in loss of sensation or function.
Beyond physical injuries, victims often experience emotional trauma, including fear of dogs, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These psychological effects can last for years and may require therapy to overcome.
Legal Options for Dog Bite Victims in Indiana
Indiana law holds dog owners responsible for the actions of their pets in many situations. If you’ve been injured by a dog bite, you may be entitled to compensation for:
Medical Expenses: Including emergency care, surgeries, and rehabilitation.
Lost Wages: For time missed at work due to recovery.
Pain and Suffering: Compensation for physical and emotional distress.
Property Damage: If personal property was damaged during the attack.
Under Indiana’s “strict liability” laws, dog owners can be held accountable if their dog bites someone without provocation, regardless of the animal’s prior behavior. Additionally, if negligence on the part of the owner contributed to the incident, such as failing to secure the dog properly, the owner could face further liability.
Why You Need an Experienced Dog Bite Attorney
Navigating a dog bite case can be challenging, especially when dealing with insurance companies and legal complexities. The attorneys at Goodin Abernathy have extensive experience handling dog bite cases in Indiana. They understand the nuances of the law and are dedicated to helping victims secure the compensation they deserve. By working with a skilled attorney, you can ensure that your case is thoroughly investigated, evidence is properly collected, and your rights are protected. This can make all the difference in achieving a favorable outcome.
Take Action Today
If you or someone you love has been injured by a dog bite, don’t wait to seek legal assistance. The team at Goodin Abernathy is ready to provide compassionate, effective representation to help you recover and move forward. (https://www.fasecolda.com/) Contact us today to schedule a consultation and take the first step toward justice.
