Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 661 (2026)

Declaration of policy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the declared public policy of the State of Maine that workers employed in any occupation should receive wages sufficient to provide adequate maintenance and to protect their health, and to be fairly commensurate with the value of the services rendered.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1972–2022 · leading case: O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017). “” 26 M.R.S.A. § 661. Thus, in accord with Cormier, we must interpret the ambiguity in Exemption F in light of the remedial purpose of Maine’s overtime statute.”

Johnson v. VCG Holding Corp., 802 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Me. 2011). “(Count I), *230 and individually, they allege violations of Maine’s Minimum Wage Act, 26 M.R.S. § 661 et seq. (Count II). 2 On February 3, 2011, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the collective action.”

Matheson v. City of Portland, 288 A.2d 476 (Me. 1972). · cites it 2× “The action is premised on the claim that as policemen employed by the City of Portland they are entitled to the benefits provided by 26 M.R.S.A. § 661 et seq. (Minimum Wage Law).”

Johnson v. VCG Holding Corp., 845 F. Supp. 2d 353 (D. Me. 2012). “(Count I) and individually, they allege violations of Maine’s Minimum Wage Act, 26 M.R.S. § 661 et seq. (Count II). On August 12, 2011, VCG moved for summary judgment and filed a statement of material facts.”

Gerard v. N. Transp., LLC, 146 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. Me. 2001). “, and Maine’s minimum wage statutes, 26 M.R.S.A. § 661 et seq. Pursuant to both federal and state law, the general rule is that if an employee works more than forty hours in a week, the employer must pay the employee overtime compensation of no less than 150% the usual hourly…”

Anderson v. Team Prior Inc (D. Me. 2021). · cites it 2× “Before me is the parties’ joint motion requesting that the Court reinstate the case following the order of dismissal entered on January 13, 2021, certify the proposed class action for settlement purposes, grant preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed settlement, approve…”

Anderson v. Team Prior Inc (D. Me. 2022). “, and Maine’s wage laws, 26 M.R.S. §§ 661 et seq. The Plaintiff, Connor Anderson, brought suit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Domino’s Pizza franchises owned by Defendants Team Prior, Inc.”

Jones v. Jasper Wyman & Son (D. Me. 2022). “Jones explains that he has a complaint pending in state court alleging that Jasper Wyman “misclassified him as an exempt employee and failed to pay him overtime wages between June 2015 and September 2018 as required by the Maine Minimum Wages Law, 26 M.R.S. §§ 661 et seq, and…”

Jones v. Jasper Wyman & Son (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “Count I seeks recovery under the Maine Minimum Wages Law, 26 M.R.S. §§ 661 et seq., and Count II seeks recovery under the Maine Wages and Medium of Payment Law, 26 M.”

Thompson v. Shaw's supermkts., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “” 26 M.R.S.A. §661. — The specific law that governs the current motion is found at 26 M.”

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.