Summary of April 2026 Labor Law Updates for Indianapolis, Indiana
Indiana’s April 2026 employment update included a Seventh Circuit ruling involving disability accommodation and retaliation claims, federal wage-and-hour judgments, workplace injury litigation, and employment discrimination rulings involving universities, health care, and public-sector employers. This roundup is designed for Indiana employees, HR professionals, compliance leaders, and employers tracking Indiana labor law and workplace rights, brought to you by HKM Employment Attorneys.
April 2026 brought several important Indiana labor law developments involving disability accommodation, wage-and-hour claims, sexual harassment litigation, workplace injury claims, school employment disputes, and new work-authorization compliance obligations. Employees and employers with questions about Indiana workplace rights or employment law compliance can contact HKM Employment Attorneys at https://hkm.com for guidance.
Lewis v. Indiana Department of Transportation — Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Court Ruling
Date: April 22, 2026
Summary:
In Lewis v. Indiana Department of Transportation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for INDOT in a case brought by a former employee who had a kidney condition and had received a remote-work accommodation. The employee alleged disability discrimination, race discrimination, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and Section 1981. The Seventh Circuit held that no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff, emphasizing that the record showed performance and insubordination reasons for termination, including a large backlog of work. The court also reiterated that Rehabilitation Act discrimination claims require proof that the adverse action occurred “solely by reason of” disability.
Implications:
This is a significant Indiana workplace rights decision because it shows that providing an accommodation does not prevent an employer from later disciplining or terminating an employee for documented performance problems. Indiana employers should still handle accommodations carefully, but they should also document job expectations, productivity issues, and disciplinary decisions consistently.
Hertig v. Butler University — ADA and Rehabilitation Act Court Ruling
Date: April 30, 2026
Summary:
In Hertig v. Butler University, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Butler University’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiff, a former pharmacy professor, alleged that Butler terminated him because of a disability, retaliated against him for disability-related protected activity, and breached an employment contract. The court found that the plaintiff plausibly alleged a disability but did not plausibly allege that his termination was connected to that disability or constituted retaliation.
Implications:
This ruling is important for Indiana employers and employees because it draws a distinction between alleging a qualifying disability and pleading facts connecting that disability to the employment action. Employers should continue documenting legitimate reasons for discipline or termination, while employees bringing ADA claims should understand that timing, causation, and factual detail matter.
Chavezberrios v. MHH Services, LLC — Wage-and-Hour Court Ruling
Date: April 13, 2026
Summary:
In Chavezberrios v. MHH Services, LLC, the Southern District of Indiana granted default judgment to a former employee who brought claims for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Claims Statute. The court awarded $4,500 for the FLSA overtime claim, $4,950 for the Indiana wage claim, and $6,310.55 in attorney fees and costs against the defendants jointly and severally.
Implications:
This case is a practical Indiana labor law reminder that wage claims can result in liability even when employers fail to appear or defend the case. Employers should maintain accurate pay records, respond promptly to wage complaints and lawsuits, and treat Indiana Wage Claims Statute issues as serious litigation risks.
Gomez v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company — Workplace Injury / FELA Court Ruling
Date: April 15, 2026
Summary:
In Gomez v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied the railroad company’s motion for summary judgment in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act case. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries in the course of his railroad employment. The court concluded that the defendant had not shown that the undisputed facts required judgment in its favor and set the case for further proceedings.
Implications:
This decision matters for Indiana railroad workers and employers because FELA claims often turn on workplace safety facts and whether the employer met its duties to employees. Rail and transportation employers should review safety procedures, incident documentation, and hazard-reporting practices.
Ruffin v. Dyer Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Title VII Sexual Harassment Court Ruling
Date: April 2, 2026
Summary:
In Ruffin v. Dyer Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, the Northern District of Indiana granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The plaintiff brought Title VII claims involving sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and sex discrimination. The court dismissed the hostile work environment count as duplicative but allowed the case to continue on remaining claims, including sexual harassment and sex discrimination theories.
Implications:
This ruling is relevant to Indiana health care employers and other workplaces where harassment claims may involve overlapping legal theories. Employers should ensure that harassment complaints are investigated promptly and that policies clearly prohibit sex-based harassment, retaliation, and discriminatory treatment.
Mack v. East Allen County Schools — School Employment / Public-Sector Employment Litigation
Date: April 14, 2026
Summary:
In Mack v. East Allen County Schools, the Northern District of Indiana denied a former school bus driver’s request to appeal in forma pauperis before final judgment. The underlying case involved the plaintiff’s firing and the State of Indiana’s revocation of his bus driver certification. The court noted that school defendants had prevailed on summary judgment, while a claim against an Indiana Department of Education official had not yet been fully resolved.
Implications:
Although procedural, this case is relevant to Indiana public-school employers and transportation employees because it shows how employment termination and state certification issues can intersect. School districts should document personnel decisions and certification-related communications carefully.
Indiana FAIRNESS Act Employer Compliance — Legislation / April Compliance Guidance
Date: April 2026 compliance guidance; law signed March 5, 2026
Summary:
Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Act 76, also known as the FAIRNESS Act, remained an important employer compliance issue in April 2026. The law was signed by the governor on March 5, 2026, and becomes effective July 1, 2026. Employment law guidance published in April emphasized that the law makes it unlawful for Indiana employers to knowingly or intentionally recruit, hire, or continue employing unauthorized workers, and that employers may use E-Verify or other reasonable-diligence practices as part of compliance.
Implications:
This is a major Indiana employment compliance development for employers with Indiana workers, especially in industries with high-volume hiring, subcontracting, or distributed worksites. Employers should review I-9 practices, E-Verify enrollment, reverification procedures, onboarding workflows, and manager training before the July 1, 2026 effective date.
Conclusion: Looking Back on Indiana’s Labor Law Updates from April 2026
As Indiana courts continue to shape employee protections around discrimination, FMLA, wrongful termination, separation agreements, wage disputes, ADA accommodations, non-competes, and hostile work environments, having local counsel matters. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Indianapolis, our fearless litigators—including Katie Bensberg, Natalie Dickey, and Benjamin Ellis—focus solely on representing employees in claims ranging from contract breaches and unpaid wages to whistleblower retaliation and employer investigations. With responsive client care and deep familiarity with both local and federal labor law, we stand ready to guide you. If recent case outcomes reflect your experience, contact our Indianapolis office to see how we can help protect your rights in state or federal court.
