§
Subdivision 1.Deduction requirements.
(a) No employer shall make any deduction, directly or indirectly, from the wages due or earned by any employee, who is not an independent contractor, for lost or stolen property, damage to property, or to recover any other claimed indebtedness running from employee to employer, unless the employee, after the loss has occurred or the claimed indebtedness has arisen, voluntarily authorizes the employer in writing to make the deduction or unless the employee is held liable in a court of competent jurisdiction for the loss or indebtedness. Such authorization shall not be admissible as evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding. Any authorization for a deduction shall set forth the amount to be deducted from the employee's wages during each pay period.
(b) A deduction may not be in excess of the amount established by law as subject to garnishment or execution on wages.
(c) Any agreement entered into between an employer and an employee contrary to this section shall be void. This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) in cases where a contrary provision in a collective bargaining agreement exists;
(2) any rules established by an employer for employees who are commissioned salespeople, where the rules are used for purposes of discipline, by fine or otherwise, in cases where errors or omissions in performing their duties exist; or
(3) in cases where an employee, prior to making a purchase or loan from the employer, voluntarily authorizes in writing that the cost of the purchase or loan shall be deducted from the employee's wages, at regular intervals or upon termination of employment.
§
Subd. 2.Violations by employer.
An employer who violates the provisions of this section shall be liable in a civil action brought by the employee for twice the amount of the deduction or credit taken.
Notes of Decisions
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., 683 N.W.2d 771 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 148× “(THM), under Minn.Stat. §181.79 (2002) for a statutory penalty based on THM's unauthorized deduction from Dr.”
Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC, 835 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 99× “The employees alleged five causes of action, including “Unlawful Deductions” made in violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.79 (2012). Before closing arguments, the employees moved for a directed verdict on their section 181.”
Erdman v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., 788 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 35× “Life Time claimed that Minn. Stat. § 181.79 (2008), rather than the MFLSA, addresses how an employer may make paycheck deductions, and therefore the class members should have sought a remedy for the paycheck deductions under that statute.”
Glass v. IDS Fin. Servs., Inc., 778 F. Supp. 1029 (D. Minnesota 1991).
· cites it 13× “IDS’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ State Law Chargeback Claims In addition to retaliation claims based on federal law, various plaintiffs assert chargeback claims pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 181.79. 64 Plaintiffs…”
Erdman v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., 771 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 29× “” Minn.Stat. § 181.79, subd. 1. The statute also provides that an employee who has suffered unauthorized deductions may recover in a civil action twice the amount of the unauthorized deduction.”
Lee v. Fresenius Med. Care, Inc., 741 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 4× “In this case, Fresenius could have sued Lee for monetary damages due to her alleged misconduct, and thus could have been adequately protected without resorting to confiscation of her earned wages; indeed, that is the implication of Minn.Stat. § 181.79 (2006). Finally, even if we…”
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., 667 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 22× “Respondent employee brought an action against appellant employer under Minn. Stat. § 181.79 (2000) after appellant, without respondent’s consent, deducted the amount necessary to repay a loan from respondent’s accrued salary.”
Stiff v. Associated Sewing Supply Co., 436 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1989).
· cites it 8× “Because we conclude the court of appeals exceeded its scope of review and erroneously concluded that in this case the common law rule of forfeiture was superseded by Minn.Stat. § 181.79 (1978), we reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of judgment.”
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A., 586 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 8× “Donahue argues she based her report to law firm shareholders on a good faith belief that the law firm's payroll deduction practice violated Minn.Stat. § 181.79 and, because all statutes are designed to protect the public, her report involved the public interest.”
Oja v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 458 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 11× “Oja thereafter initiated this action, claiming Dayton’s policy violates Minn.Stat. § 181.79, subd. 1, which prohibits employers from making certain deductions from an employee’s wages without authorization from the employee.”
In re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 273 F.R.D. 424 (N.D. Ind. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Minnesota The Minnesota plaintiffs allege violations of Minnesota’s Illegal Deductions from Wages Law, Minn.Stat. § 181.79, subd. 1, Failure to Keep Records Law, Minn.”
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.