Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 558 — Wages
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71 (2026)

Weekly payment of wages; how paid when employment ends

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 31-71 is repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 7361, 7362; 1951, S. 3013d; 1961, P.A. 264, S. 7; 1967, P.A. 714, S. 10.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Saunders v. Firtel, 978 A.2d 487 (Conn. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Saunders v. Firtel, 978 A.2d 487 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 2× “(Adco), and Barbur Associates, LLC (Barbur), 4 in which the plaintiff, a former employee of Adco and a member and 50 percent interest holder in Barbur, sought to recover unpaid wages and double damages from Adco under General Statutes §§ 31-71 c 5 and 31-72, 6 and a judicial…”
Weems v. Citigroup, Inc., 961 A.2d 349 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 2× “20 B We next address the plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to damages under the wage statutes because the deductions were not “on a form approved by the commissioner” of the department, as is required by § 31-71 e (2). The plaintiffs rely on Engle v.”
Quiello v. Reward Network Establishment Servs., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Conn. 2006). · cites it 4× “(“RNI”), asserting claims for breach of contract and violations of Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 31-71(e), 31-72, and 31-73 that arise out of Quiello’s employment compensation arrangement with RNI.”
Emerick v. Kuhn, 737 A.2d 456 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “the jury inaccurately framed interrogatories regarding the plaintiffs implied contract, tortious interference and negligent misrepresentation counts, (4) directed verdicts on the plaintiffs negligence, breach of implied contract, fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent…”
Roberts v. Triplanet Partners, LLC, 950 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 2× “In total, Roberts’ complaint alleged the following causes of action: breach of contract (Count I); violations of the Connecticut wage statute, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-71 a (Count II); fraudulent inducement (Count III); fraud (Count IV); declaratory judgment (Count V); securities…”
Haynes Constr. Co. v. Cascella & Son Constr., Inc., 647 A.2d 1015 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 3× “Since the defendant agreed to pay his employees fully only upon completion of the project, the court concludes that General Statutes §§ 31-71[b] and 31-53 have been violated.”
Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co., 952 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 2× “, Donahue, 1991 WL 537530 , at *8 (where plaintiff asserted that in her wrongful discharge claim she was not seeking to also recover wages under the relevant wage statute, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-71 a to 71i, but merely citing it to articulate Connecticut’s public policy against…”
Mytych v. May Dep't Stores Co., 34 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Conn. 1999). “”) § 31-71 et seq and § 31-73. Plaintiffs are or were commissioned sales employees selling shoes or electronics at various retail stores owned by May Department Stores and bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons.”
Mujo v. Jani-King Int'l, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 38 (D. Conn. 2018). “As a result, the Connecticut Supreme Court in Mytych rejected a wage claim under Section 31-71, where the employer entered into a commission agreement with the plaintiffs, which provided that the plaintiffs' wages were based on a certain percentage of gross sales.”
State v. Merdinger, 655 A.2d 1167 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). “Any employer or any officer or agent of an employer or any other person authorized by an employer to pay wages who violates any provision of sections 31-71a to 31-7U, inclusive, may be fined not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than…”
State v. Nanowski, 746 A.2d 177 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “3 The defendant subsequently was arrested and charged with failure to pay wages in violation of § 31-71 c. Following his conviction, he was given a total effective sentence of ten years imprisonment, suspended after three years, and five years probation.”
Mohan v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc. (D. Conn. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 31 -71e is “a remedial statute for the collection of wages that provides penalties in order to deter employers from deferring wage payments once they have accrued”) (emphasis added) (cleaned up); see also Dalamagas, 2017 WL 1086323 , at *3 (dismissing claim under section 31-71…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71(e) — 1 case
Quiello v. Reward Network Establishment Servs., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Conn. 2006). “(“RNI”), asserting claims for breach of contract and violations of Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 31-71(e), 31-72, and 31-73 that arise out of Quiello’s employment compensation arrangement with RNI.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.