Court Opinion

ID: 9743316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:30:43.883597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.513341
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Osler petitions for rehearing on several grounds, one of which we should address more fully than we did in our opinion, Osler Institute v. Inglert (1990), Ind.App., 558 N.E.2d 901. Osler contends IND. CODE 22-2-5-1 and 22-2-5-2, concerning liquidated damages and attorney fees upon non-payment of wages, do not apply unless the employee makes a request for wages prior to or concurrent with the period of employment at issue, and that Inglert did not demand the wages until after she left employment with Osler. The Fourth District of this court has delineated three distinct regulations arising from IND.CODE 22-2-5-1. Fardy v. Physicians Health Rehab. Serv. (1988), Ind.App., 529 N.E.2d 879. The violation of any one regulation will trigger the punitive sanctions of IND. CODE 22-2-5-2. - One of the regulations is: "Employees, upon separation from employment, must be paid the amount due them at their next and usual payday." Id. at 882. The court stated a demand for wages was not a requisite of this regulation. Id. To hold otherwise would allow employers owing wages to their employees to terminate the employees, avoid the payment of wages, and then be shielded from the application of the penalty statute.
Since Inglert was separated from her employment with Osler, it was not necessary for her to make a demand for the unpaid wages prior to or concurrent with the period of employment. Id. See also Baesler's Super-Valu v. Indiana Com'r of Labor (1986), Ind.App., 500 N.E.2d 243. We recognize the Third District of this court discussed this issue and reached a different conclusion. See City of Hammond v. Conley (1986), Ind.App., 498 N.E.2d 48 (stating application of the penalty provision for an employee separated from employment requires a request for payment made prior to or concurrent with the employment). We disagree, however, and our decision remains the same.
Petition for rehearing denied.
ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.