Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 165.2 (2026)

Semimonthly or monthly payment of wages on regular

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

paydays - Payment in money - Itemized statement of deductions - Prohibited payments - Dishonored checks. Every employer in this state shall pay all wages due their employees, other than exempt employees and employees of nonprivate foundations qualified pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 509(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C.

170(b)(1)(A)(vi), at least twice each calendar month on regular paydays designated in advance by the employer. State, county and municipal employees, exempt employees, school district employees, technology center school district employees and employees of nonprivate foundations qualified pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 509(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) shall be paid a minimum of once each calendar month. The amount due such employees shall be paid in lawful money of the United States including payment by electronic means, and the employee shall not be deemed to have waived any right or rights mentioned in this section because of any contract to the contrary. Each employer in this state, in its discretion, may pay all wages due to an employee by deposit on the payday at a financial institution of the employee's choice or, if the employee does not consent or designate a financial institution, to a payroll card account. With each payment of wages earned by such employee, the employer shall issue to such employee a brief itemized statement of any and all deductions therefrom. An interval of not more than eleven (11) days may elapse between the end of the pay period worked and the regular payday designated by the employer. The employer shall be allowed three (3) days after such payday in which to comply with this section. No such employer shall issue, in payment of or as evidence of indebtedness due an employee any check, cashier's check, draft, time check, store order, scrip, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness unless the same is payable or redeemable upon demand without discount and for face value in lawful money of the United States. If an employer pays an employee with a check which is subsequently returned to the employee or an agent thereof by reason of the refusal of the bank upon which such check was drawn to honor the same due to insufficient funds or a stop payment notice, the employer shall reimburse the employee for any fees or costs incurred by the employee due to the refusal to honor the check within fourteen (14) days of the employer's notice of the bank's refusal to honor the check. Added by Laws 1955, p. 241, § 2, emerg. eff. June 6, 1955. Amended by Laws 1967, c. 346, § 1, emerg. eff. May 18, 1967; Laws 1982, c. 304, § 25, operative Oct. 1, 1982; Laws 1990, c. 333, § 19, emerg. eff. May 31, 1990; Laws 2002, c. 160, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2006, c. 277, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2006; Laws 2009, c. 164, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2009; Laws 2013, c. 45, § 1, eff. July 1, 2013; Laws 2022, c. 156, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2022.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1992–2018 · leading case: Reynolds v. Advance Alarms, Inc., 2009 OK 97 (Okla. 2009).
Reynolds v. Advance Alarms, Inc., 2009 OK 97 (Okla. 2009). · cites it 6× “, the federal district court certified the following question of state law to this Court: Does the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act, 40 O.S. §§ 165.2, 165.7, 165.8 and 199, provide an established and well-defined public policy sufficient to support a Burk tort claim? ¶ 3 The…”
Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 114 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety on July 21, 2017, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defs.' Mot. Specifically, Defendants contend that: (1) all claims against WFMI and portions of…”
Coen v. Semgroup Energy Partners G.P., LLC, 310 P.3d 657 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013). “Defendant violated 40 O.S. §§ 165.2 when it failed to pay wages due to each Plaintiff other than O'Sullivan after termination of employment.”
State ex rel. Moss v. Couch, 841 P.2d 1154 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “” The facts in said Information are purportedly contrary to, and thus in violation of, 40 O.S.Supp.1982, § 165.2, which relates to the payment of wages due an employee by his employer and which provides in pertinent part: “Every employer in this state shall pay all wages due the…”
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.