(a) When used in this section, “refund of wages” means: (1) The return by an employee to his employer or to any agent of his employer of any sum of money actually paid or owed to the employee in return for services performed or (2) payment by the employer or his agent to an employee of wages at a rate less than that agreed to by the employee or by any authorized person or organization legally acting on his behalf.
(b) No employer, contractor, subcontractor, foreman, superintendent or supervisor of labor, acting by himself or by his agent, shall, directly or indirectly, demand, request, receive or exact any refund of wages, fee, sum of money or contribution from any person, or deduct any part of the wages agreed to be paid, upon the representation or the understanding that such refund of wages, fee, sum of money, contribution or deduction is necessary to secure employment or continue in employment. No such person shall require, request or demand that any person agree to make payment of any refund of wages, fee, contribution or deduction from wages in order to obtain employment or continue in employment. A payment to any person of a smaller amount of wages than the wage set forth in any written wage agreement or the repayment of any part of any wages received, if such repayment is not made in the payment of a debt evidenced by an instrument in writing, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any deductions from wages made in accordance with the provisions of any law, or of any rule or regulation made by any governmental agency.
(d) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days for the first offense, and, for each subsequent offense, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months or both.
(1949 Rev., S. 7363.)
Cited. 37 CA 85.
Subsec. (b):
Formula for calculating salesperson's commissions did not violate prohibition against employer deducting money from employees' wages. 260 C. 152. “Sum of money” may include earnings other than money, whether source is related or unrelated to employment relationship at issue; “representation or . . . understanding” encompasses expressed representations and mutual understandings as well as implicit representations by, and unilateral understandings of, employer and need not be explicitly communicated to employee; employer may have unilateral understanding that employee's acquiescence to demand or request for sum of money is necessary to continue employment. 346 C. 360.
Any request or demand of money made by an employer concerning funds that cannot reasonably be attributed to the existing employment relationship but, rather, involving negotiations related to a separate, albeit related, future business venture between the parties, occurring in the context of an existing employer-employee relationship is not enough to bring an action within the ambit of those that are prohibited under section. 206 CA 412; judgment reversed, see 346 C. 360.
Notes of Decisions
Lockwood v. Prof'l Wheelchair Transp., Inc., 654 A.2d 1252 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 27× “Lockwood argues that he was discharged in violation of public policy, where there was sufficient *91 evidence from which the jury could have concluded that he was discharged in violation of General Statutes § 31-73 (b) 5 and where Professional Ambulance demanded money from him…”
Mytych v. May Dep't Stores Co., 34 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Conn. 1999).
· cites it 12× “Count I In Count I, the plaintiffs allege that May’s prorata deduction of commissions from unidentified returns from the individual sales employees’ total gross sales is an illegal refund of employee wages in contravention of C.G.S. § 31-73. Pursuant to Section 31-73, an…”
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 828 A.2d 64 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 6× “” The plaintiffs then asked the court for a finding of wrongful detention of money under General Statutes § 31-73. 68 The court rejected this request, concluding *264 that this was a claim that was appropriate to raise earlier, for submission to the jury.”
Mujo v. Jani-King Int'l, Inc., 13 F.4th 204 (2d Cir. 2021).
· cites it 11× “§ 31 -71e, and the Connecticut anti-kickback statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-73 . * Judge Denise Cote, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.”
Mujo v. Jani-King Int'l, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 38 (D. Conn. 2018).
· cites it 17× “The Act also instructs that "[n]o employer ... shall, directly or indirectly, demand, request, receive or exact any refund of wages, fee, sum of money or contribution from any person.”
Ass'n Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 2 A.3d 873 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 4× “13 General Statutes § 31-73 provides: “(a) When used in this section, ‘refund of wages’ means: (1) The return by an employee to his employer or to any agent of his employer of any sum of money actually paid or owed to the employee in return for services performed or (2) payment…”
Quiello v. Reward Network Establishment Servs., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Conn. 2006).
· cites it 12× “13] is DENIED as to Counts I and II of the plaintiffs complaint, GRANTED as to Counts III and IV of the plaintiffs complaint, and GRANTED as to Count V of the plaintiffs complaint only to the extent it asserts a cause of action under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 31-73. The plaintiffs cross…”
Weems v. Citigroup, Inc., 961 A.2d 349 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “We further concluded that “[t]he language used in § 31-73 (b) also suggests that the legislature intended that the employer-employee agreement, as opposed to a statutory formula, control the manner in which wages are calculated.”
Dunn v. Ne. Helicopters Flight Servs., L.L.C. (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 53× “, violated General Statutes § 31-73 (b) and the public policy under- lying that statute, which prohibits employers from coercing an employee to refund wages or related sums of money to the employer, or from withholding wages due and owing to an employee, as a condition either to…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-73(a) — 2 cases
Mytych v. May Dep't Stores Co., 34 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Conn. 1999).
“Count I In Count I, the plaintiffs allege that May’s prorata deduction of commissions from unidentified returns from the individual sales employees’ total gross sales is an illegal refund of employee wages in contravention of C.G.S. § 31-73. Pursuant to Section 31-73, an…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-73(a)(2) — 1 case
Quiello v. Reward Network Establishment Servs., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Conn. 2006).
“13] is DENIED as to Counts I and II of the plaintiffs complaint, GRANTED as to Counts III and IV of the plaintiffs complaint, and GRANTED as to Count V of the plaintiffs complaint only to the extent it asserts a cause of action under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 31-73. The plaintiffs cross…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-73(b) — 6 cases
Mujo v. Jani-King Int'l, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 38 (D. Conn. 2018).
“The Act also instructs that "[n]o employer ... shall, directly or indirectly, demand, request, receive or exact any refund of wages, fee, sum of money or contribution from any person.”
Mujo v. Jani-King Int'l, Inc., 13 F.4th 204 (2d Cir. 2021).
“§ 31 -71e, and the Connecticut anti-kickback statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-73 . * Judge Denise Cote, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-73(d) — 1 case
Quiello v. Reward Network Establishment Servs., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Conn. 2006).
“13] is DENIED as to Counts I and II of the plaintiffs complaint, GRANTED as to Counts III and IV of the plaintiffs complaint, and GRANTED as to Count V of the plaintiffs complaint only to the extent it asserts a cause of action under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 31-73. The plaintiffs cross…”
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.