§
Subdivision 1.Prohibited practices.
An employer may not, directly or indirectly and with intent to defraud:
(1) cause any employee to give a receipt for wages for a greater amount than that actually paid to the employee for services rendered;
(2) directly or indirectly demand or receive from any employee any rebate or refund from the wages owed the employee under contract of employment with the employer; or
(3) in any manner make or attempt to make it appear that the wages paid to any employee were greater than the amount actually paid to the employee.
§
Subd. 2.Commissions.
Except as otherwise provided in section 181.13, an employer or a person, firm, corporation, or association may not alter the method of payment, timing of payment, or procedures for payment of commissions earned through the last day of employment after the employee has resigned or been terminated if the result is to delay or reduce the amount of payment.
§
Subd. 3.Civil action.
An employer who violates this section is liable in a civil action brought by the employee for twice the amount in dispute.
§
Subd. 4.Enforcement.
The use of an enforcement provision in this section shall not preclude the use of any other enforcement provision provided by law.
§
Subd. 5.Effect on other laws.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of other state or federal laws.
§
Subd. 6.Retaliation.
An employer shall not discharge, discipline, penalize, interfere with, threaten, restrain, coerce, or otherwise retaliate or discriminate against an employee for asserting rights or remedies under this section, sections 177.21 to 177.44, 181.01 to 181.723, or 181.79, including, but not limited to, filing a complaint with the department or telling the employer of the employee's intention to file a complaint. In addition to any other remedies provided by law, an employer who violates this subdivision is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $700 nor more than $3,000 per violation.
Notes of Decisions
Karlen v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., 766 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 9× “The district court sua sponte granted summary judgment for Karlen and held that JLLA had wrongfully withheld commission payments; the district court consequently awarded Karlen the amount of the commission as well as statutory penalties for late payment under Minn.Stat. §§…”
Fiebelkorn v. Ikon Off. Solutions, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Minnesota 2009).
· cites it 9× “Count I — Minn. Stat. § 181.03 In Count I, Fiebelkorn alleges that IKON violated Minnesota Statutes Section 181.”
Frederick Skoda v. Lilly USA LLC, 488 F. App'x 161 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 5× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 181.03 , subdiv. 2 (certain unlawful acts relating to payment of wages), 181.”
Auge v. Fairchild Equip., Inc. (D. Minnesota 2019).
· cites it 14× “Count II alleges failure to pay wages, a violation of the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 181.03 , 181.14. In support of these claims, Auge alleges that, because Fairchild owed him a 30% commission on the full amount of the JCB equipment transaction with Birds Eye…”
Hull v. ConvergeOne, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 11× “) The Court notes that the language on the sample notice, however, simply asks employers to indicate the “rate or rates of pay” by checking a box, whereas Minn. Stat. § 181.03 (b)(2) requires employers to disclose “the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof.”
Auge v. Fairchild Equip., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (D. Me. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Count II alleges failure to pay wages, a violation of the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 181.03 , 181.14. In support of these claims, Auge alleges that, because Fairchild owed him a 30% commission on the full amount of the JCB equipment transaction with Birds Eye…”
— Minn. Stat. § 181.03(b) — 1 case
Hull v. ConvergeOne, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2021).
“) The Court notes that the language on the sample notice, however, simply asks employers to indicate the “rate or rates of pay” by checking a box, whereas Minn. Stat. § 181.03 (b)(2) requires employers to disclose “the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof.”
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.