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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 629 (2026)

Unfair agreements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Work without compensation; return of compensation.  A person, firm or corporation may not require or permit any person as a condition of securing or retaining employment to work without monetary compensation or when having an agreement, oral, written or implied, that a part of such compensation should be returned to the person, firm or corporation for any reason other than for the payment of a loan, debt or advance made to the person, or for the payment of any merchandise purchased from the employer or for sick or accident benefits, or life or group insurance premiums, excluding compensation insurance, that an employee has agreed to pay, or for rent, light or water expense of a company-owned house or building. This section does not apply to work performed in agriculture or in or about a private home.  
[PL 2007, c. 524, §1 (RPR).]
2.  Debt.  For purposes of this subchapter, "debt" means a benefit to the employee. "Debt" does not include items incurred by the employee in the course of the employee's work or dealing with customers on the employer's behalf, such as cash shortages, inventory shortages, dishonored checks, dishonored credit cards, damages to the employer's property in any form or any merchandise purchased by a customer. “Debt” does not include uniforms, personal protective equipment or other tools of the trade that are considered to be primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer. As used in this subsection, “uniforms” means shirts or other items of clothing bearing the company name or logo. The employer may not mandate that an employee pay for the cleaning and maintenance of a uniform, but may have a written agreement whereby the employee chooses to have a payroll deduction for the cost of cleaning and maintenance.  
[PL 2007, c. 524, §1 (RPR).]
3.  Penalty.  An employer is liable to an employee for the amount returned to the employer by that employee as prohibited in this section.  
[PL 2007, c. 524, §1 (RPR).]
4.  Deduction of service fees.  Public employers may deduct service fees owed by an employee to a collective bargaining agent from the employee's pay, without signed authorization from the employee, and remit those fees to the bargaining agent, as long as:  
A. The fee obligation arises from a lawfully executed and implemented collective bargaining agreement; and   [PL 2007, c. 524, §1 (RPR).]
B. In the event a fee payor owes any arrears on the payor's fee obligations, the deduction authorized under this subsection may include an installment on a payment plan to reimburse all arrears, but may not exceed in each pay period 10% of the gross pay owed.   [PL 2007, c. 524, §1 (RPR).]
[PL 2007, c. 524, §1 (RPR).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1981, c. 285 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 652, §5 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 357, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 415, §1 (RPR). PL 2007, c. 524, §1 (RPR).
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 19 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., 703 F. Supp. 138 (D. Me. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., 703 F. Supp. 138 (D. Me. 1988). · cites it 16× “4 Plaintiff now claims that Defendant’s actions in withholding weekly sums from Plaintiff’s pay violate 26 M.R.S.A. § 629. Plaintiff claims that, under 26 M.”
Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., 711 F. Supp. 655 (D. Me. 1989). · cites it 12× “Plaintiff Daniel Beckwith brings this action against his employer, Defendant United Parcel Service (“UPS”), seeking damages for an allegedly unlawful employment practice in violation of 26 M.R.S.A. section 629. Initially brought in the Maine Superi- or Court for Cumberland…”
Daniel Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., Daniel Beckwith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 889 F.2d 344 (1st Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “Beckwith relied on 26 M.R.S.A. § 629, which states in pertinent part: No person, firm or corporation shall require or permit any person as a condi *346 tion of securing or retaining employment to work without monetary compensation or when having an agreement, verbal, written or…”
Larson v. Johnson, 184 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D. Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “Here, Plaintiff argues that pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 629, Defendants SA and ECJ had the duty not to allow him to work without compensation.”
William Clark v. Hancock Cnty. Commissioners, 2014 ME 33 (Me. 2014). “The plaintiffs alleged, for the first time, that the Commissioners violated Deputy Sargent’s due process rights under the Maine and United States Constitutions and his rights as an employee pursuant to the Maine Wages and Medium of Payment Act (WMPA), 26 M.R.S. § 629 (2013).…”
Scovil v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D. Me. 2012). “§ 664, the other prohibiting certain deductions from employee paychecks, 26 M.R.S.A. § 629. In turn, FXG has requested that I decertify the federal FLSA collective action.”
Cooper v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 635 A.2d 952 (Me. 1993). “The Employees brought suit, claiming that Springfield Terminal’s actions violated 26 M.R.S.A. § 629 (1988), which prohibits uncompensated work as a condition of securing or retaining employment.”
Finn v. Cup 4 Cup LLC (D. Me. 2023). · cites it 41× “§ 629 is overly restrictive and at odds with the plain language of the statute.”
Southwick v. Health Afiliates Maine, LLC (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 6× “at 2-10 , citing26 M.R.S. § 629. Plainly, if Southwick is correct on the second contention-the illegality of HAM"s compensation policy regardless of whether the case manager agreed to it­ 7 that the case may be able proceed as a class action if the certification requirements are…”
W. R. Berkley Corp. v. Becker (D. Del. 2022). · cites it 5× “16 at 2 (citing 26 M.R.S.A. § 629)). Second, even if the provisions are not void ab initio, Maine law controls (and renders the repayment provisions illegal) under a choice-of-law analysis.”
Noll v. Flowers Foods Inc (D. Me. 2021). · cites it 5× “26 M.R.S. § 629(1). In effect, and put into the context of this litigation, an employer may not require its employees to “return” to the employer part of their wages for any reason other than to pay a loan, debt, advance, or rent.”
Constantino v. Shaws Supermarkets Inc (D. Me. 2021). · cites it 4× “Now, through this action filed in state court in or about September 2020, Constantino claims the wage provisions of the CBA are “an unfair agreement” that requires drivers to work without compensation, in violation of 26 M.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 629(1) — 4 cases
Noll v. Flowers Foods Inc (D. Me. 2021). “26 M.R.S. § 629(1). In effect, and put into the context of this litigation, an employer may not require its employees to “return” to the employer part of their wages for any reason other than to pay a loan, debt, advance, or rent.”
Southwick v. Health Afiliates Maine, LLC (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “at 2-10 , citing26 M.R.S. § 629. Plainly, if Southwick is correct on the second contention-the illegality of HAM"s compensation policy regardless of whether the case manager agreed to it­ 7 that the case may be able proceed as a class action if the certification requirements are…”
Dr. Dorsey v. N. Light Health (Me. Super. Ct 2021).
Mangone v. 1330 Dental Assocs. (Me. Super. Ct 2012).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 629(2) — 1 case
Noll v. Flowers Foods Inc (D. Me. 2021). “26 M.R.S. § 629(1). In effect, and put into the context of this litigation, an employer may not require its employees to “return” to the employer part of their wages for any reason other than to pay a loan, debt, advance, or rent.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 629(3) — 1 case
Noll v. Flowers Foods Inc (D. Me. 2021). “26 M.R.S. § 629(1). In effect, and put into the context of this litigation, an employer may not require its employees to “return” to the employer part of their wages for any reason other than to pay a loan, debt, advance, or rent.”
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.