Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 45-606 (2026)
Payment of wages upon separation from employment.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Payment of wages upon separation from employment.
(1) Upon layoff, or upon termination of employment by either the employer or employee, the employer shall pay or make available at the usual place of payment all wages then due the employee by the earlier of the next regularly scheduled payday or within ten (10) days of such layoff or termination, weekends and holidays excluded. However, if the employee makes written request upon the employer for earlier payment of wages, all wages then due the employee shall be paid within forty-eight (48) hours of the receipt of such request, weekends and holidays excluded.
(2) Unless exempt from the minimum wage requirements of chapter 15, title 44, Idaho Code, employees who are not being paid on an hourly or salary basis must be paid at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the pay period immediately preceding layoff or termination from employment. The minimum wage payment shall be made within the same time limitations provided for in subsection (1) of this section. Any additional wages owed to employees shall be paid by the next regularly schedule payday.
(3) The director may, upon application showing good and sufficient reasons, grant an employer a temporary extension to any time limitation provided in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Lawless v. Davis, 560 P.2d 497 (Idaho 1977).
Lawless v. Davis, 560 P.2d 497 (Idaho 1977). “Idaho Code § 45-606 in relevant part reads as follows: "Whenever any employer of labor shall hereafter discharge or lay off his or its employees without first paying them the amount of any wages or salary then due them * * * each of his or its employees may charge and collect…”
Paolini v. Albertson's Inc., 149 P.3d 822 (Idaho 2006). “The dissent also argues that changes made in 1989 to Idaho Code § 45-606 demonstrate a legislative intent that wages due on termination from employment do not have to be paid in cash or its equivalent.”
Polk v. Larrabee, 17 P.3d 247 (Idaho 2000). “On appeal, the department claimed that Kalac was not entitled to the thirty-day wage claim penalty in I.C. § 45-606 because the actual amount of the wages due Kalac was not ascertainable until the conclusion of the grievance process.”
Smith v. Kount Inc., 497 P.3d 534 (Idaho 2021). “Smith asserts that, pursuant to Goff, because he had already earned the variable compensation when he separated from employment, Idaho Code section 45-606 simply accelerated the payment date identified in Section 6 of the ICP.”
Lindsey v. McCatron, 299 P.2d 496 (Idaho 1956). “§ 45-605, and to recovery of any sum as a penalty as provided by I.C. § 45-606. September 1, 1953, respondent became employed by appellant in its logging operations and so continued until February 8, 1954, excepting during at least two occasions when he quit or was laid off.”
De Witt v. Medley, 791 P.2d 1323 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990). “Idaho Code § 45-606 now reads that "[u]pon layoff, or upon termination of employment by either the employer or employee____” the aggrieved employee is entitled to the thirty-day wage penalty.”
Stiffler v. Hydroblend, Inc., 535 P.3d 606 (Idaho 2023). “The district court only concluded that treble damages could not be owed under Stiffler’s termination timeframe.”
Kalac v. Canyon Cnty., 809 P.2d 511 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990). “The sole issue on appeal is whether Kalac is entitled to receive thirty days’ wages under former I.C. § 45-606. For reasons explained below, we reverse the summary judgment and remand this case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hales v. King, 762 P.2d 829 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “§ 45-606 to the present case, Hales’ recovery under the wage law must be limited to treble damages under I.C. § 45-615(4), the remedy he chose in this action.”
Bilow v. Preco, Inc., 966 P.2d 23 (Idaho 1998). “In Lawless , this Court addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff could recover damages under I.C. § 45-606 and have that recovery trebled under I.”
Schoonover v. Bonner Cnty., 750 P.2d 95 (Idaho 1988). “This argument seems to be that, unless the claim is prosecuted through the Department of Labor, the employee must seek recovery under I.C. § 45-606, which provides that, in addition to the amount of outstanding wages, the employee can receive up to a maximum of thirty days…”
Bakker v. Thunder Spring-Wareham, LLC, 108 P.3d 332 (Idaho 2005). “00 for her work, and made a demand for payment pursuant to I.C. § 45-606. Thunder Spring refused to pay the commission.”
— Idaho Code § 45-606(1) — 8 cases
Paolini v. Albertson's Inc., 149 P.3d 822 (Idaho 2006). “The dissent also argues that changes made in 1989 to Idaho Code § 45-606 demonstrate a legislative intent that wages due on termination from employment do not have to be paid in cash or its equivalent.”
Smith v. Kount Inc., 497 P.3d 534 (Idaho 2021). “Smith asserts that, pursuant to Goff, because he had already earned the variable compensation when he separated from employment, Idaho Code section 45-606 simply accelerated the payment date identified in Section 6 of the ICP.”
Stiffler v. Hydroblend, Inc., 535 P.3d 606 (Idaho 2023). “The district court only concluded that treble damages could not be owed under Stiffler’s termination timeframe.”
Hurst v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Idaho 2011).
Rivera (D. Idaho 2025).
— Idaho Code § 45-606(10) — 1 case
Paolini v. Albertson's Inc., 149 P.3d 822 (Idaho 2006). “The dissent also argues that changes made in 1989 to Idaho Code § 45-606 demonstrate a legislative intent that wages due on termination from employment do not have to be paid in cash or its equivalent.”
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.