# Can my Indiana employer pay less than the federal minimum wage?

- Jurisdiction: United States
- Practice area: Employment Law
- Published: 2026-10-22
- Last updated: 2026-10-22
- Canonical: https://lawasked.com/us/employment-law/can-my-indiana-employer-pay-less-federal-minimum

## Question

I have worked on the packing line at a grocery warehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana, since February 2022. The warehouse ships produce and other goods to stores in several states, and my coworkers and I handle about 2,000 cases per shift. For the first year, my employer paid me $7.25 an hour, exactly the federal minimum wage. In January 2023, it reduced my pay to $6.80 per hour because it claimed I was still a “new employee” and could be paid a lower training wage. My supervisor, Dana, put the change in writing even though I had already worked there for a year.

I asked Dana why the lower rate did not apply to the employees who had worked there longer, but she would not explain. I also emailed the company’s payroll department on January 12, 2023, and an employee named Marcus replied that the training rate was supposed to last only 90 days. No one gave me a copy of the company’s written training policy. My two shifts each last eight hours, and I usually work 40 hours a week, but overtime is also based on the lower amount. I have checked the pay stubs for the last six months and confirmed that I received $2,112 for 310 hours of work at the reduced rate, which is $200 less than $7.25 an hour would have paid. I am unsure whether the federal minimum wage or a training exception applies to me and whether I can recover the shortage and overtime. What should I do?

## Summary

The supplied statutes do not establish a $7.25 minimum wage or authorize a 90-day training wage, so they cannot by themselves resolve your claim. Preserve your payroll records, request the employer’s policy, and promptly report the wage shortfall to federal or Indiana labor authorities while considering counsel.

## Analysis

The primary provision states Congress declared the FLSA’s policy “to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate those in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers” [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec202]. That is a congressional policy statement, not the operative provision specifying a minimum-wage rate, a training exception, or an overtime formula [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec202].

The federal minimum-wage requirement is set elsewhere in the FLSA, at 29 U.S.C. § 206, but that provision was not supplied and therefore cannot be quoted or applied as the governing text in this answer. Likewise, the supplied sections contain no provision establishing $7.25 as the applicable federal rate or authorizing an employer to pay $6.80 to a warehouse employee as a “new employee” or “training wage.” Thus, the validity of the reduction remains an open question that must be evaluated under the complete FLSA, its regulations, and any legally authorized exception [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec202].

Your one year of service, the written reduction after that year, and Marcus’s statement that the training rate was supposed to last only 90 days are relevant to whether the employer’s stated reason for the reduction was accurate. The employer’s internal 90-day rule, however, cannot authorize a rate below the legally applicable minimum wage; any exception must rest on authority outside the employer’s policy itself [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec202]. Whether a valid exception applies depends on the complete statutory and regulatory text, the written policy, the actual training program, and any limitation on the exception [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec202].

The figures stated in the question do not reconcile: 310 hours at $6.80 would equal $2,108, and 310 hours at $7.25 would equal $2,247.50, a difference of $139.50 rather than $200. That discrepancy should be checked against each pay stub because the amount recoverable will depend on the actual hours worked, the legally required regular and overtime rates, and any lawful deductions or exclusions [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec202]. The supplied sections also do not specify how overtime must be calculated, so the additional amount attributable to overtime cannot be determined from them [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec202].

The second supplied provision requires that an employer provide “a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for 1 year after the child’s birth each time the employee has need to express the milk” [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec218d]. That provision concerns breastfeeding accommodations and supplies no rule concerning minimum wages, training wages, or overtime [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec218d]. It therefore cannot support the employer’s $6.80 rate or resolve your wage claim [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec218d].

The federal and state limitations periods, administrative filing deadlines, private-court requirements, and available remedies must also be checked under the complete governing law before suit is filed; filing an agency complaint may preserve a claim while counsel evaluates it [cite:us-title29-flsa-sec202]. State or local law may add requirements, so check Indiana’s minimum-wage, overtime, recordkeeping, and youth-employment rules and whether any applicable Indianapolis or Marion County ordinance imposes additional requirements.

## Statutory citations

- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 202 - Congressional finding and declaration of policy [in force] (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section202)
  > it is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce and its channels and instrumentalities of commerce, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate those in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers
- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 218d - Breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace [in force] (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section218d)
  > An employer shall provide a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for 1 year after the child’s birth each time the employee has need to express the milk.

---
General information only, not legal advice. See https://lawasked.com/disclaimer