Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 290
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.100 (2026)

Thirty days' notice of reduction of wages, how

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  290.100.  Thirty days' notice of reduction of wages, how. — Any railway, mining, express, telegraph, manufacturing or other company or corporation doing business in this state, and desiring to reduce the wages of its employees, or any of them, shall give to the employees to be affected thereby thirty days' notice thereof.  Such notice may be given by posting a written or printed handbill, specifying the class of employees whose wages are to be reduced and the amount of the reduction, in a conspicuous place in or about the shops, station, office, depot or other place where said employees may be at work, or by mailing each employee a copy of said notice or handbill, and such company or corporation violating any of the provisions of this section shall forfeit and pay each party affected thereby the sum of fifty dollars, to be recovered by civil action in the name of the injured party, with costs, before any court of competent jurisdiction.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 §§ 5066, 5067, A.L. 1943 p. 410 § 75)

Prior revisions: 1929 §§ 4590, 4591; 1919 §§ 9782, 9783; 1909 §§ 3022, 3023

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: Shaun Stanbrough v. Vitek Solutions, Inc., 445 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shaun Stanbrough v. Vitek Solutions, Inc., 445 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 18× “Stanbrough alleged in a two-count petition that Vitek violated the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (“MMWL”) by failing to pay overtime compensation he was due and that Vitek breached its contract with him and violated Section 290.100 1 by unilaterally decreasing his pay without notice.”
LaCour v. EthruE-001, LLC (E.D. Mo. 2024). · cites it 5× “, and the Missouri Unpaid Wage Law (“MUWL”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.100 , et seq. Plaintiffs also bring claims under Missouri common law.”
Brown v. Milner Hotel, 332 S.W.2d 59 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 3× “Section 290.100 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., requires a written notice of a wage reduction and prescribes a penalty of fifty dollars payable to the employee if there is a failure to comply with the statute.”
Carter v. City of St. Louis (E.D. Mo. 2024). · cites it 2× “Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.100 . The City moves to dismiss Count III on the ground that it is not alleged to be a “railway, mining, express, telegraph, manufacturing or other company or corporation doing business in this state.”
Harrison v. Maid2Clean Servs. LLC (E.D. Mo. 2025). · cites it 2× “(the “MM WL”); (iii) violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.100 ; and (iv) breach of contract.”
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.