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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 664 (2026)

Minimum wage; overtime rate

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an employer may not employ any employee at a rate less than the rates required by this section.   [PL 1995, c. 305, §1 (RPR).]
1.  Minimum wage.  The minimum hourly wage is $7.50 per hour. Starting January 1, 2017, the minimum hourly wage is $9.00 per hour; starting January 1, 2018, the minimum hourly wage is $10.00 per hour; starting January 1, 2019, the minimum hourly wage is $11.00 per hour; and starting January 1, 2020, the minimum hourly wage is $12.00 per hour. On January 1, 2021 and each January 1st thereafter, the minimum hourly wage then in effect must be increased by the increase, if any, in the cost of living. The increase in the cost of living must be measured by the percentage increase, if any, as of August of the previous year over the level as of August of the year preceding that year in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, CPI-W, for the Northeast Region, or its successor index, as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics or its successor agency, with the amount of the minimum wage increase rounded to the nearest multiple of 5¢. If the highest federal minimum wage is increased in excess of the minimum wage in effect under this section, the minimum wage under this section is increased to the same amount, effective on the same date as the increase in the federal minimum wage, and must be increased in accordance with this section thereafter.  
[IB 2015, c. 2, §1 (AMD).]
2.  Tip credit.  An employer may consider tips as part of the wages of a service employee, but such a tip credit may not exceed 50% of the minimum hourly wage established in this section except that from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, the minimum cash wage paid directly to a tipped service employee may not be less than $5.00 per hour. An employer who elects to use the tip credit must inform the affected employee in advance, as provided for in this subsection, and must be able to show that the employee receives at least the minimum hourly wage when direct wages and the tip credit are combined within the established 7-day workweek. Upon a satisfactory showing by the employee or the employee's representative that the actual tips received were less than the tip credit, the employer shall increase the direct wages by the difference.  
The tips received by a service employee become the property of the employee and may not be shared with the employer. Tips that are automatically included in the customer's bill or that are charged to a credit card must be treated like tips given to the service employee. A tip that is charged to a credit card must be paid by the employer to the employee by the next regular payday and may not be held while the employer is awaiting reimbursement from a credit card company. The employer may not deduct any amount from employee tips charged to a credit card, including, but not limited to, service fees assessed to the employer in connection with the credit card transaction.  
An employer who elects to use the tip credit must inform the affected employee in advance, either orally or in writing, of the following information:  
A. The amount of the direct wage to be paid by the employer to the tipped employee;   [PL 2017, c. 272, §1 (NEW).]
B. The amount of tips to be credited as wages toward the minimum wage;   [PL 2017, c. 272, §1 (NEW).]
C. That the amount of tips to be credited as wages may not exceed the value of the tips actually received by the employee;   [PL 2017, c. 272, §1 (NEW).]
D. That all tips received by the affected employee must be retained by the employee, except for a valid tip pooling arrangement in accordance with subsection 2‑A;   [PL 2023, c. 179, §1 (AMD).]
E. That the tip credit may not apply to any employee who has not been informed by the employer of the provisions for a tip credit; and   [PL 2017, c. 272, §1 (NEW).]
F. If the employer uses a tip pooling arrangement, any required tip pool contribution amount from the employee.   [PL 2017, c. 272, §1 (NEW).]
[PL 2023, c. 179, §1 (AMD).]
2-A.  Tip pooling.  This section may not be construed to prohibit an employer from establishing a valid tip pooling arrangement that does not violate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and regulations made pursuant to that Act as long as:  
A. The tip pooling arrangement is only among service employees when the employer uses the tip credit under subsection 2; or   [PL 2023, c. 179, §2 (NEW).]
B. The tip pooling arrangement is among a group of employees when the employer pays all employees in the group the minimum hourly wage and does not use the tip credit under subsection 2. An employer may not receive tips from such a tip pool and may not allow supervisors and managers to receive tips from the tip pool.   [PL 2023, c. 179, §2 (NEW).]
[PL 2023, c. 179, §2 (AMD).]
2-B.  Service charges.  An employer in a banquet or private club setting that adds a service charge shall notify the customer that the service charge does not represent a tip for service employees. The employer in a banquet or private club setting may use some or all of any service charge to meet its obligation to compensate all employees at the rate required by this section.  
[PL 2011, c. 118, §4 (NEW).]
3.  Overtime rate.  An employer may not require an employee to work more than 40 hours in any one week unless 1 1/2 times the regular hourly rate is paid for all hours actually worked in excess of 40 hours in that week. The regular hourly rate includes all earnings, bonuses, commissions and other compensation that is paid or due based on actual work performed and does not include any sums excluded from the definition of "regular rate" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 United States Code, Section 207(e).  
The overtime provision of this section does not apply to:  
A. Automobile mechanics, automobile parts clerks, automobile service writers and automobile salespersons as defined in section 663. The interpretation of these terms must be consistent with the interpretation of the same terms under federal overtime law, 29 United States Code, Section 213;   [PL 2007, c. 360, §5 (AMD).]
B. [PL 2007, c. 640, §5 (RP).]
C. Mariners;   [PL 1995, c. 305, §1 (NEW).]
D. Public employees, except those employed by the executive or judicial branch of the State;   [PL 2003, c. 423, §1 (AMD); PL 2003, c. 423, §5 (AFF).]
E. [PL 2007, c. 640, §6 (RP).]
F. The canning; processing; preserving; freezing; drying; marketing; storing; packing for shipment; or distributing of:  
(1) Agricultural produce;  
(2) Meat and fish products; and  
(3) Perishable foods.  
Individuals employed, directly or indirectly, for or at an egg processing facility that has over 300,000 laying birds must be paid overtime in accordance with this subsection;   [PL 2019, c. 387, §1 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 387, §4 (AFF).]
G.   [PL 2001, c. 628, §3 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 628, §5 (AFF); MRSA T. 26 §664, sub-§3, ¶ G (RP).]
H. [PL 2011, c. 681, §2 (RP).]
I. [PL 2011, c. 681, §2 (RP).]
J. [PL 2011, c. 681, §2 (RP).]
K. A driver or driver's helper who is not paid hourly and is subject to the provisions of 49 United States Code, Section 31502 as amended or to regulations adopted pursuant to that section, who is governed by the applicable provisions of federal law with respect to payment of overtime.  
Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to limit the rights of parties to negotiate rates of pay for drivers and driver's helpers who are represented for purposes of collective bargaining by a labor organization certified by the National Labor Relations Board or who are employed by an entity that is party to a contract with the Federal Government or an agency of the Federal Government that dictates the minimum hourly rate of pay to be paid a driver or driver's helper; and   [PL 2019, c. 387, §2 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 387, §4 (AFF).]
L. Public employees employed by the executive or judicial branch of the State engaged in fire protection activities, as defined in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 United States Code, Section 203(y), or in law enforcement activities, as defined in 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 553.211, and who are eligible to have overtime pay calculated and paid in accordance with 29 United States Code, Section 207(k).  
This paragraph may not be construed to limit the rights of parties to negotiate an agreement that provides for payment of overtime that exceeds the requirements of 29 United States Code, Section 207(k).   [PL 2019, c. 387, §3 (NEW); PL 2019, c. 387, §4 (AFF).]
[PL 2019, c. 387, §§1-3 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 387, §4 (AFF).]
4.  Compensatory time.  To the extent permitted under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 United States Code, Section 207(o), the overtime pay requirement applicable to executive or judicial employees as described in subsection 3, paragraph D may be met through compensatory time agreements.  
[PL 2003, c. 423, §2 (NEW); PL 2003, c. 423, §5 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 410, §5 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 333 (AMD). PL 1967, c. 466, §5 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 184 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 356 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 504, §43 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 590, §41 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 78, §1 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 415 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 620, §13 (AMD). PL 1971, c. 622, §88 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 420 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 467 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 625, §171 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 752, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 23 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 352 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 54 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 516, §3 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 857 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 76, §2 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 576 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 738, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 507, §2 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 544, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 233, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 233, §3 (AFF). PL 1993, c. 434, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 434, §8 (AFF). PL 1995, c. 305, §1 (RPR). PL 1995, c. 510, §1 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 136, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 297, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 336, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 628, §§1-3 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 628, §5 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 423, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 423, §5 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 697, §1 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 578, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 360, §5 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 367, §2 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 640, §§4-6 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 118, §§3, 4 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 681, §§1-3 (AMD). IB 2015, c. 2, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 219, §15 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 272, §1 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 10, §1 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 387, §§1-3 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 387, §4 (AFF). PL 2023, c. 179, §§1, 2 (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 50 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · 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). · cites it 5× “26 M.R.S.A. § 664(3). Specifically, if that exemption used a serial comma to mark off the last of the activities that it lists, then the exemption would clearly encompass an activity that the drivers perform.”
Bolduc v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 35 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Me. 1998). · cites it 9× “§ 1 (“FLSA”), and Maine’s state counterpart to this law, 26 M.R.S.A. § 664, because it failed to compensate him at a rate of one and one-half times his hourly rate for hours worked for National in excess of forty hours per week (Count I).”
Hayden-Tidd v. Cliff House & Motels, Inc., 52 A.3d 925 (Me. 2012). · cites it 15× “26 M.R.S. § 664(2 — B) (2011) (emphasis added).”
Prescott v. Prudential Ins., 729 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Me. 2010). · cites it 3× “§§ 207 , 216, and under Maine employment law, 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 664, 670. She asks that her lawsuit be certified conditionally as a collective action under the FLSA, 29 U.”
Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc., 945 A.2d 1225 (Me. 2008). · cites it 4× “See 26 M.R.S. §§ 664(3), 670 (2007). [¶4] On A-l Auto’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for further findings, the Superior Court issued an amended judgment on May 30, 2007.”
In Re Wage Payment Litig., 2000 ME 162 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “18, 1999); 26 M.R.S.A. § 664 (1988 & Supp.1999) (proscribing minimum wage requirements); the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.”
Avery v. Kennebec Millwork, Inc., 861 A.2d 634 (Me. 2004). · cites it 3× “[¶ 10] Count I of Avery’s complaint seeking overtime pay was brought pursuant to, and cites to, 26 M.R.S.A. § 664 (Supp. 2003), which is part of the minimum wage statute.”
Portland Reg'l Chamber of Com. v. City of Portland, 2021 ME 34 (Me. 2021). · cites it 3× “If the state minimum wage established by 26 M.R.S. § 664 is increased in excess of the minimum wage in effect under this ordinance is increased to the same amount, effective on the same date as the increase in the state minimum wage, and must be increased in accordance with this…”
Thompson v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2004 ME 63 (Me. 2004). · cites it 4× “1 Thompson and Lockwood contend that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the relevant statute, 26 M.R.S.A. § 664 (Supp.2003), does not apply to work done outside Maine; and (2) that “commingled” workweeks are exempt from the overtime provision of section 644(3).”
Venegas v. Global Aircraft Serv., Inc., 159 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “26 M.R.S.A. § 664; see also 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 668(3), 670.”
Sydney A. TerMorshuizen v. Spurwink Servs., Inc., 2019 ME 77 (Me. 2019). · cites it 4× “(Spurwink) on the TerMorshuizens' claim for overtime pay pursuant to 26 M.R.S. § 664 (2018). In this appeal we consider whether interruptions to "sleep time" are compensable under section 664.”
Gordon v. Maine Cent. R.R., 657 A.2d 785 (Me. 1995). · cites it 3× “) finding no violation of 26 M.R.S.A. § 664 (1988 & Supp.1994), 1 by defendants, Maine Central Railroad and Springfield Terminal Railway Company (Railroads).”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 664(1) — 7 cases
Robert Bocko v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2024 ME 8 (Me. 2024).
Hayden-Tidd v. Cliff House & Motels, Inc., 52 A.3d 925 (Me. 2012). “26 M.R.S. § 664(2 — B) (2011) (emphasis added).”
Stone v. RB Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2013).
Bradford v. Naples Causeway Dev. LLC (D. Me. 2022).
Southwick v. Health Afiliates Maine, LLC (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 664(2) — 3 cases
Hayden-Tidd v. Cliff House & Motels, Inc., 52 A.3d 925 (Me. 2012). “26 M.R.S. § 664(2 — B) (2011) (emphasis added).”
Hayden-Tidd v. The Cliff House & Motels, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2011).
Stone v. RB Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2013).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 664(3) — 15 cases
O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017). “26 M.R.S.A. § 664(3). Specifically, if that exemption used a serial comma to mark off the last of the activities that it lists, then the exemption would clearly encompass an activity that the drivers perform.”
Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc., 945 A.2d 1225 (Me. 2008). “See 26 M.R.S. §§ 664(3), 670 (2007). [¶4] On A-l Auto’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for further findings, the Superior Court issued an amended judgment on May 30, 2007.”
Alden v. State, 1998 ME 200 (Me. 1998).
Sydney A. TerMorshuizen v. Spurwink Servs., Inc., 2019 ME 77 (Me. 2019). “(Spurwink) on the TerMorshuizens' claim for overtime pay pursuant to 26 M.R.S. § 664 (2018). In this appeal we consider whether interruptions to "sleep time" are compensable under section 664.”
Avery v. Kennebec Millwork, Inc., 861 A.2d 634 (Me. 2004). “[¶ 10] Count I of Avery’s complaint seeking overtime pay was brought pursuant to, and cites to, 26 M.R.S.A. § 664 (Supp. 2003), which is part of the minimum wage statute.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 664(3)(A) — 1 case
Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc., 945 A.2d 1225 (Me. 2008). “See 26 M.R.S. §§ 664(3), 670 (2007). [¶4] On A-l Auto’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for further findings, the Superior Court issued an amended judgment on May 30, 2007.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 664(3)(F) — 4 cases
O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, 851 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017). “26 M.R.S.A. § 664(3). Specifically, if that exemption used a serial comma to mark off the last of the activities that it lists, then the exemption would clearly encompass an activity that the drivers perform.”
Thompson v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2004 ME 63 (Me. 2004). “1 Thompson and Lockwood contend that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the relevant statute, 26 M.R.S.A. § 664 (Supp.2003), does not apply to work done outside Maine; and (2) that “commingled” workweeks are exempt from the overtime provision of section 644(3).”
Noll v. Flowers Foods Inc (D. Me. 2020).
Thompson v. Shaw's supermkts., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 664(3)(K) — 1 case
Noll v. Flowers Foods Inc (D. Me. 2020).
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.