290.110. Payment due discharged employee — exceptions — penalty for delay. — Whenever any person, firm or corporation doing business in this state shall discharge, with or without cause, or refuse to further employ any servant or employee thereof, the unpaid wages of the servant or employee then earned at the contract rate, without abatement or deduction, shall be and become due and payable on the day of the discharge or refusal to longer employ and the servant or employee may request in writing of his foreman or the keeper of his time to have the money due him, or a valid check therefor, sent to any station or office where a regular agent is kept; and if the money or a valid check therefor, does not reach the station or office within seven days from the date it is so requested, then as a penalty for such nonpayment the wages of the servant or employee shall continue from the date of the discharge or refusal to further employ, at the same rate until paid; provided, such wages shall not continue more than sixty days. This section shall not apply in the case of an employee whose remuneration for work is based primarily on commissions and whose duties include collection of accounts, care of a stock or merchandise and similar activities and where an audit is necessary or customary in order to determine the net amount due.
Notes of Decisions
Jones v. Galaxy 1 Mktg., Inc., 478 S.W.3d 556 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 18× “Jones contends the trial- court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim for wrongful discharge (Count I); on his claim of discrimination asserted under the Missouri Human Rights Act (Count II); and oh his claim for unpaid wages under Section 290.110 1 (Count VI). - None…”
Monterosso v. St. Louis Globe-Democrat Publ'g Co., 368 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. 1963).
· cites it 20× “At various dates between May 29 and August 29, 1959 Globe-Democrat received letters from counsel for each of plaintiffs making demand for payment of wages as provided by § 290.110, and letter of dismissal as provided by § 290.”
Ball v. Am. Greetings Corp., 752 S.W.2d 814 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 8× “Count III alleged that the defendant withheld wages due the plaintiff for more than seven days after termination in breach of § 290.110, RSMo 1978, and sought actual damages and statutory penalties.”
Vice v. Thurston, 793 S.W.2d 900 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 14× “This is a civil action for wages claimed due pursuant to both an employment contract and under § 290.110, RSMo 1986. The judgment is affirmed.”
Slavens v. William C. Haas Co., 563 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 10× “We will set forth the evidence most favorable to the judgment which focuses on the three allegations of error urged by appellants which are that the respondent (1) did not request her delinquent wages from her “foreman or keeper of time” as required by Section 290.110; (2) that…”
McLaurin v. Frisella Moving & Storage Co., 355 S.W.2d 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962).
· cites it 13× “Section 290.110 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.*, which reads: *362 “Whenever any corporation doing business in this state shall discharge, with or without cause, or refuse to further employ any servant or employee thereof, the unpaid wages of any such servant or employee then earned at the…”
Coates v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 525 S.W.2d 654 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 13× “In the action against Barkley, plaintiffs claimed the amount of wages owed, as represented by the dishonored cheeks, and for penalties due for unpaid wages under § 290.110. Neither Cousins nor USFG received any notice of plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Barkley.”
Lotz v. Missouri Distrib. Co., 387 S.W.2d 179 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 10× “00 by virtue of Section 290.110, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and that the trial court found for the wrong party on this issue.”
Bd. v. Eurostyle, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 810 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The employees sought, in addition to their unpaid wages, recovery from the surety of the penalty that was imposed by § 290.110, RSMo 1969, for failure to timely pay wages owed to discharged employees.”
Taylor v. Goldammer, 944 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 12× “Goldammer for unpaid wages and the penalty imposed for those unpaid wages pursuant to § 290.110, RSMo 1994. The circuit court concluded that Taylor was not entitled to the penalty, and Taylor appeals.”
Solter v. P.M. Place Stores Co., 748 S.W.2d 919 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “The principal issue in the case is whether an employer may offset a debt owed it by the employee against wages otherwise due the employee without incurring the penalties provided in § 290.110, RSMo 1986. 1 The relevant facts are that Solter was employed by P.”
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.