(a) When any employer employing labor within this state discharges an employee, the wages or commissions actually earned and unpaid at the time of the discharge are immediately due and payable upon demand of the employee. Wages are actually earned and unpaid if the employee was not paid for all time worked at the employee's regular rate of pay or at the rate required by law, including any applicable statute, regulation, rule, ordinance, government resolution or policy, contract, or other legal authority, whichever rate of pay is greater. If the employee's earned wages and commissions are not paid within 24 hours after demand, whether the employment was by the day, hour, week, month, or piece or by commissions, the employer is in default. In addition to recovering the wages and commissions actually earned and unpaid, the discharged employee may charge and collect a penalty equal to the amount of the employee's average daily earnings at the employee's regular rate of pay or the rate required by law, whichever rate is greater, for each day up to 15 days, that the employer is in default, until full payment or other settlement, satisfactory to the discharged employee, is made. In the case of a public employer where approval of expenditures by a governing board is required, the 24-hour period for payment does not commence until the date of the first regular or special meeting of the governing board following discharge of the employee. An employee's demand for payment under this section must be in writing but need not state the precise amount of unpaid wages or commissions. An employee may directly seek and recover payment from an employer under this section even if the employee is not a party to a contract that requires the employer to pay the employee at the rate of pay demanded by the employee, so long as the contract or any applicable statute, regulation, rule, ordinance, government resolution or policy, or other legal authority requires payment to the employee at the particular rate of pay. The employee shall be able to directly seek payment at the highest rate of pay provided in the contract or applicable law, and any other related remedies as provided in this section.
(b) The wages and commissions must be paid in the usual manner of payment unless the employee requests that the wages and commissions be sent through the mails. If, in accordance with a request by the employee, the employee's wages and commissions are sent to the employee through the mail, the wages and commissions are paid as of the date of their postmark.
Notes of Decisions
Lee v. Fresenius Med. Care, Inc., 741 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 224× “The court noted that under Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (2006), an employer is obligated to compensate an employee *122 for vacation pay if the employee meets the eligibility requirements.”
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 23× “Specifically, appellants contend that their wage claim should be allowed to proceed because wages were “mandatory” and “actually earned” under section 181.13. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Kvidera v. Rotation Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 705 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 46× “In this appeal from posttrial motions in a claim for breach of an employment contract and violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (2004), the employer argues the district court: (a) erred in construing the employment contract as terminable for just cause rather than as an at-will…”
Reisdorf v. 13, LLC, 129 F. Supp. 3d 751 (D. Minnesota 2015).
· cites it 22× “Violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.13 et seq. (Count VIII) i3 and LI move for summary judgment on Count VIII of Reisdorfs Amended Complaint, in which Reisdorf seeks unpaid bonus earnings under Minn.”
Holman v. CPT CORP., 457 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 21× “Upon her discharge from employment by respondent CPT Corporation, appellant Margaret Holman filed this lawsuit, alleging unjust enrichment and failure to pay wages and commissions in violation of common law and Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (1986). The trial court granted CPT’s motion for…”
Anderson v. Medtronic, Inc., 382 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 1986).
· cites it 18× “The trial court awarded $10,891 in damages plus interest and penalties under Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (1982). It also awarded plaintiff more than $16,000 in attorney fees pursuant to Minn.”
Wenigar v. Johnson, 712 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Respondent Lester Wenigar brought an action against appellant Lee Johnson, his former employer, asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), disability discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), violations of Minn.Stat. §§ 181.13, 181.79, and…”
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC, 771 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “932 (2002); (2) violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (2002) (failure to pay wages promptly); (3) violation of Minn.”
Tischer v. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. of Cambridge, 693 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 2005).
· cites it 4× “In Count I of this action, Tischer sought unpaid wages under Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (2004) and in Count II she sought damages for breach of her April 15, 2002 employment contract with the Cambridge HRA.”
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Eng'g Co., 401 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Finally, the court held the verdict was not excessive and remanded to the trial court for a determination of wage penalties under Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (1986). Id. The primary issue to be discussed is whether the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the…”
Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Hamann’s complaint also alleged claims for misrepresentation, failure to pay wages in violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (2010), and unjust enrichment.”
Chambers v. the Travelers Companies, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minnesota 2011).
· cites it 9× “27] Subsequently, Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 29] Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint alleges five counts against the Defendant: (1) Defamation, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Violation of Minn.”
— Minn. Stat. § 181.13(a) — 10 cases
Lee v. Fresenius Med. Care, Inc., 741 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2007).
“The court noted that under Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (2006), an employer is obligated to compensate an employee *122 for vacation pay if the employee meets the eligibility requirements.”
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. 2012).
“Specifically, appellants contend that their wage claim should be allowed to proceed because wages were “mandatory” and “actually earned” under section 181.13. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Kvidera v. Rotation Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 705 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
“In this appeal from posttrial motions in a claim for breach of an employment contract and violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (2004), the employer argues the district court: (a) erred in construing the employment contract as terminable for just cause rather than as an at-will…”
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.