Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 103.455 (2026)
Deductions for faulty workmanship, loss, theft or damage
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
103.455103.455 Deductions for faulty workmanship, loss, theft or damage. No employer may make any deduction from the wages due or earned by any employee, who is not an independent contractor, for defective or faulty workmanship, lost or stolen property or damage to property, unless the employee authorizes the employer in writing to make that deduction or unless the employer and a representative designated by the employee determine that the defective or faulty workmanship, loss, theft or damage is due to the employee’s negligence, carelessness, or willful and intentional conduct, or unless the employee is found guilty or held liable in a court of competent jurisdiction by reason of that negligence, carelessness, or willful and intentional conduct. If any deduction is made or credit taken by any employer that is not in accordance with this section, the employer shall be liable for twice the amount of the deduction or credit taken in a civil action brought by the employee. Any agreement entered into between an employer and employee that is contrary to this section shall be void. In case of a disagreement between the 2 parties, the department shall be the 3rd determining party, subject to any appeal to the court. Section 111.322 (2m) applies to discharge and other discriminatory acts arising in connection with any proceeding to recover a deduction under this section.
103.455 AnnotationThe consent of the employee may only serve as a basis for a deduction if it is given in writing after the loss and before the deduction. Donovan v. Schlesner, 72 Wis. 2d 74, 240 N.W.2d 135 (1976).
103.455 AnnotationTermination of an employee-at-will may violate the public policy underlying this section. Wandry v. Bull’s Eye Credit Union, 129 Wis. 2d 37, 384 N.W.2d 325 (1986).
103.455 AnnotationCommissions earned over and above a salary are wages under this section. The six-year statute of limitations, under s. 893.43, applicable to claims for commissions applies to the recovery of deductions from commissions under this section. A claimant need not first bring a claim before the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations if the employer has never given the employee an opportunity to contest the deductions. Erdman v. Jovoco, Inc., 181 Wis. 2d 736, 512 N.W.2d 487 (1994).
103.455 AnnotationThe exception to the at-will employment doctrine, founded on well-defined public policy found in this section, does not reach every potential deduction by an employer from an employee’s wages. Batteries Plus, LLC v. Mohr, 2001 WI 80, 244 Wis. 2d 559, 628 N.W.2d 364, 99-1319.
103.455 AnnotationThis section necessarily creates a separate and distinct claim from simple breach of contract, and it must be pled as such. Wolnak v. Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgeons of Central Wisconsin, 2005 WI App 217, 287 Wis. 2d 560, 706 N.W.2d 667, 04-1051.
103.455 AnnotationOnce an employee earns wages, this section protects that employee from having the employer deduct those earned wages on charges that the employee was responsible for defective or faulty workmanship, or lost or stolen property or damaged property unless one of three things occurs. The public policy goal of the statute is to prevent the employer from arbitrarily deducting hard earned wages at its prerogative. Farady-Sultze v. Aurora Medical Center of Oshkosh, Inc., 2010 WI App 99, 327 Wis. 2d 110; 787 N.W.2d 433, 09-2429.
103.455 AnnotationAn employer who fired an employee after discovering that it had mistakenly overpaid her and concluding that the employee kept those overpayments to herself, did not run afoul of this statute or the public policy. The employee never earned the extra payments, and the statute does not protect her. Farady-Sultze v. Aurora Medical Center of Oshkosh, Inc., 2010 WI App 99, 327 Wis. 2d 110; 787 N.W.2d 433, 09-2429.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: Batteries Plus, LLC v. Mohr, 2001 WI 80 (Wis. 2001).
Batteries Plus, LLC v. Mohr, 2001 WI 80 (Wis. 2001). “In allowing Mohr's counterclaim, the circuit court ruled that Wis. Stat. § 103.455 (1995-96) [1] provided a well-established and important public policy basis to preclude Batteries Plus from lawfully discharging Mohr for this refusal to agree to have repayment amounts deducted…”
Wandry v. Bull's Eye Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 325 (Wis. 1986). “She cites sec. 103.455, Stats. 1983-84, as the statutory source of this well-defined public policy.”
Wolnak v. Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgeons of Cent. Wisconsin, 2005 WI App 217 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “After trial, Wolnak filed a motion to change the verdict to add penalties for wage claim violations in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 103.455 and Wis. Stat. ch. 109.”
Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 579 N.W.2d 217 (Wis. 1998). “In Wandry , we held that Wis. Stat. § 103.455 (1983-84) "articulates a fundamental and well-defined public policy proscribing economic coercion by an employer upon an employee to bear the burden of a work-related loss when the employee has no opportunity to show that the loss…”
Erdman v. Jovoco, Inc., 512 N.W.2d 487 (Wis. 1994). “, in February 1991, claiming that these companies, his former employers, made deductions from his commission earnings in violation of sec. 103.455, Stats. 1991-92. Section 103.”
Erdman v. Jovoco, Inc., 496 N.W.2d 183 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Erdman appeals a judgment dismissing his action under sec. 103.455, Stats., and holding that the compensation he received in the form of a commission was not wages.”
Bushko v. Miller Brewing Co., 396 N.W.2d 167 (Wis. 1986). “The statute considered in Wandry was sec. 103.455, Stats. [4] The court stated: "We conclude *144 that sec.”
Donovan Ex Rel. State, Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations v. Schlesner, 240 N.W.2d 135 (Wis. 1976). “*76 The sole issue presented is whether sec. 103.455, Stats., was complied with in making deductions from the weekly wages of the plaintiff.”
Strozinsky v. Sch. Dist. of Brown Deer, 2000 WI 97 (Wis. 2000). “at 44 , we reasoned that the provision implicitly aims to prevent employers from invoking their coercive economic powers "to shift the burden of a work related loss from the employer to the employee" when the loss occurs through no fault of the employee.”
Schultz v. Prod. Stamping Corp., 434 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1989). “Section 103.455, Stats., upon which we relied, only prohibits an employer from deducting work-related losses from an employee's wages.”
Winkelman v. Beloit Mem'l Hosp., 483 N.W.2d 211 (Wis. 1992). “Public policy arguments were based on the interpretation of sec. 103.455, Stats. Although I agreed with this court's process of applying the spirit of the law in Wandry , I disagreed with the majority's construction of the statute's purpose and its application to the relevant…”
Garvey v. Buhler, 430 N.W.2d 616 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Garvey’s pleadings allege that her termination violated fundamental and well-established pub- *291 lie policy as evidenced in sec. 103.455, Stats. See Wandry v. Bulls Eye Credit Union, 129 Wis.”
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.