SB 156 would expand Indiana’s workplace protections for employees who seek protective orders. Under the bill, an employer could not discriminate against an employee in compensation, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment because the employee filed a petition for a protective order, even if the order has not yet been issued, or because of the conduct of the person against whom the protective order was sought. The bill also continues the existing prohibition on terminating an employee for those reasons.
The measure adds a new section clarifying that the chapter does not limit any rights or remedies available under other state or federal laws. It is set to take effect July 1, 2025, and would amend Indiana Code chapter 22-5-7, which addresses employment protections related to protective orders.
Impact
SB 156 would amend Indiana’s labor and safety code by broadening anti-retaliation protections for employees involved in protective-order proceedings. It would make clear that employers may not take adverse employment actions short of termination—such as reducing pay, cutting benefits, or changing working conditions—because an employee sought a protective order or because of the respondent’s actions. The bill preserves the ability of employers and employees to mutually agree to changes in work location, compensation, benefits, or other terms, and it expressly leaves intact any separate rights or remedies under other laws.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive. The bill’s purpose is framed as protecting employees from workplace consequences tied to domestic violence or harassment-related protective order filings, which typically draws support as a worker-safety and anti-retaliation measure. No recorded opposition, amendments, or vote history is provided here to indicate broader controversy.
Contention
The main policy issue in the bill is the scope of employer restrictions. Supporters would likely favor extending protections beyond termination to cover discrimination in pay, benefits, and other employment terms, while employers may be attentive to how broadly those limits apply in practice. Another point of potential concern is the reference to adverse actions based on the conduct of the person against whom the protective order was filed, which could raise questions about how employers manage workplace safety, scheduling, or operational decisions when an employee is involved in a protective-order case. The bill’s carve-out for mutually agreed changes appears intended to address some of those concerns.