Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 26
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 626-A (2026)

Penalties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whoever violates any of the provisions of section 600‑A, sections 621‑A to 623 or section 626, 628, 628‑A, 629, 629‑B or 639‑A is subject to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 for each violation.   [PL 2025, c. 418, §1 (AMD).]
Any employer is liable to the employee or employees for the amount of unpaid wages and health benefits. Upon a judgment being rendered in favor of any employee or employees, in any action brought to recover unpaid wages or health benefits under this subchapter, such judgment includes, in addition to the unpaid wages or health benefits adjudged to be due, a reasonable rate of interest, costs of suit including a reasonable attorney's fee, and an additional amount equal to twice the amount of unpaid wages as liquidated damages.   [PL 1993, c. 648, §1 (AMD).]
Remedies for unpaid wages do not become available to the employee except as follows. If the wages are clearly due without a bona fide dispute, remedies are available to the employee 8 days after the due date for payment. If there is a bona fide dispute at the time payment is due, remedies become available to the employee 8 days after demand when the wages are, in fact, due and remain unpaid.   [PL 1999, c. 465, §5 (NEW).]
The action for unpaid wages or health benefits may be brought by either the affected employee or employees or by the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor is further authorized to supervise the payment of the judgment, collect the judgment on behalf of the employee or employees and collect fines incurred through violation of this subchapter. When the Department of Labor brings an action for unpaid wages or health benefits, this action and an action to collect a civil forfeiture may both be joined in the same proceeding.   [PL 1993, c. 648, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 113, §5 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 623, §37-C (AMD). PL 1975, c. 770, §114 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 652, §§2,3 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 648, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 465, §5 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 35, §2 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 404, §2 (AMD). PL 2025, c. 418, §1 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: In Re Wage Payment Litig., 2000 ME 162 (Me. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Wage Payment Litig., 2000 ME 162 (Me. 2000). · cites it 14× “465, § 1 (effective September 18, 1999), and 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A (1988 & Supp. 1998) (concerning penalties and rights of action for violations by employers), amended by P.”
Robert Bocko v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2024 ME 8 (Me. 2024). · cites it 5× “26 M.R.S. § 626-A (2021) provides that “[w]hoever violates any of the provisions of section[] 621-A .”
Bellino v. Schlumberger Tech., Inc., 753 F. Supp. 391 (D. Me. 1990). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs bring three state law claims (based on theories of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and a statutory wage claim pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A) and one federal claim based on the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.”
State v. L.V.I. Grp., 1997 ME 25 (Me. 1997). · cites it 2× “) [2] 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A (1988 & Supp.1996) authorizes the Department of Labor to bring the action on behalf of employees.”
Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., 703 F. Supp. 138 (D. Me. 1988). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff claims that, under 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A, he is entitled to recover unpaid wages, interest, an additional amount equal to twice the amount of such unpaid wages, costs of suit, and attorneys’ fees.”
Deanna Dorsey v. N. Light Health, 2022 ME 62 (Me. 2022). “” 26 M.R.S. § 626-A (authorizing the affected employee to initiate an action for unpaid wages).”
Burke v. Port Resort Realty Corp., 1999 ME 138 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “[¶ 19] Port Resort finally contends that the judgment is not in the “favor of the employee,” 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A, because the trial court found that Port Resort’s “characterization of the amount and timing of the payments owed to Burke under the agreement was correct.”
Daniel Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., Daniel Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 889 F.2d 344 (1st Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “An employer who violates that law by withholding wages from its employee’s paycheck is not subject to penalties contained in the second paragraph of 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A, but must reimburse its employee the full amount withheld from pay.”
Madore v. Kennebec Heights Country Club, 926 A.2d 1180 (Me. 2007). “As provided in 26 M.R.S. § 626-A (2006), because Madore is entitled to entry of a judgment pursuant to section 626, on remand the court must also consider whether to award a civil penalty in accordance with section 626-A.”
Bisbing v. Maine Med. Ctr., 2003 ME 49 (Me. 2003). “MMC advances numerous interpretive arguments, asserting the existence of an implied bad faith element because section 626 is allegedly a penal statute; because it should be read together with a related statute, 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A (Supp.2002); because it should be read in light…”
Bolduc v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 35 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Me. 1998). “See 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A. 9 . ERISA provides a time bar for breach of fiduciary duty claims.”
Knoppers v. Rumford Cmty. Hosp., 531 A.2d 1276 (Me. 1987). · cites it 2× “The Superior Court declined to assess a fine pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A because it concluded that this was not an available sanction in a private cause of action.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
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.