Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2026)
Penalties
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
109.11(1)(a)(a) In adjusting a controversy between an employer and an employee as to an alleged wage claim filed with the department under s. 109.09 (1), the department may compromise and settle that wage claim for such sum as may be agreed upon between the department, the employee and the employer.
109.11(1)(b)(b) If the department finds that a wage claim is valid, the department may instruct the employer against whom the wage claim is filed to audit his or her payroll records to determine whether the employer may be liable for any other wage claims of the same type as the wage claim that prompted the audit instruction. If after the requested completion date of the audit the department receives a wage claim against the employer of the same type as the wage claim that prompted the audit instruction and if the department determines that the subsequent wage claim is valid, the department may audit the employer’s payroll records to determine whether the employer may be liable for any other wage claims of the same type as the wage claim that prompted the audit instruction. For any valid wage claim that is filed against an employer after the department has instructed the employer to audit his or her payroll records under this paragraph and that is of the same type as the wage claim that prompted the audit instruction and for any valid wage claim that is discovered as a result of the department’s audit under this paragraph and that is of the same type as the wage claim that prompted the audit instruction, the department shall require the employer to pay, in addition to the amount of wages due and unpaid, increased wages of not more than 50 percent of the amount of wages due and unpaid, unless the employer shows the department that payment of the increased wages would cause extreme hardship.
109.11(1)(c)(c) If an employer does not agree to compromise and settle a wage claim under this subsection, the department may refer the wage claim to a district attorney under s. 109.09 (1) or to the department of justice under s. 109.10 (3) for commencement of an action in circuit court to collect the amount of wages due and unpaid plus increased wages as specified in sub. (2) (b).
109.11(2)(a)(a) In a wage claim action that is commenced by an employee before the department has completed its investigation under s. 109.09 (1) and its attempts to compromise and settle the wage claim under sub. (1), a circuit court may order the employer to pay to the employee, in addition to the amount of wages due and unpaid and in addition to or in lieu of the criminal penalties specified in sub. (3), increased wages of not more than 50 percent of the amount of wages due and unpaid.
109.11(2)(b)(b) In a wage claim action that is commenced after the department has completed its investigation under s. 109.09 (1) and its attempts to settle and compromise the wage claim under sub. (1), a circuit court may order the employer to pay to the employee, in addition to the amount of wages due and unpaid to an employee and in addition to or in lieu of the criminal penalties specified in sub. (3), increased wages of not more than 100 percent of the amount of those wages due and unpaid.
109.11(3)(3) Criminal penalties. Any employer who, having the ability to pay, fails to pay the wages due and payable as provided in this chapter or falsely denies the amount or validity thereof or that such wages are due, with intent to secure any discount upon such indebtedness or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder or defraud the person to whom such wages are due, may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than 90 days or both. Each failure or refusal to pay each employee the amount of wages due at the time, or under the conditions required in this chapter, constitutes a separate offense.
109.11 AnnotationIn a collective bargaining/arbitration situation a defense of “good cause” under s. 111.70 (7m) (e) is available if the employer fails to pay wages pursuant to s. 109.03 (1). Employees Local 1901 v. Brown County, 146 Wis. 2d 728, 432 N.W.2d 571 (1988).
109.11 AnnotationWhether payments under an arbitration award are due from the entry of the award depends on the overall circumstances. Kenosha Fire Fighters v. City of Kenosha, 168 Wis. 2d 658, 484 N.W.2d 152 (1992).
109.11 AnnotationPenalties under sub. (2) (b) may only be applied when wages are due and unpaid at the time an enforcement action is commenced in court. Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI 145, 267 Wis. 2d 92, 673 N.W.2d 676, 02-1701.
109.11 AnnotationNeither the text of sub. (2) (b) nor the case law interpreting it appear to support applying the federal presumption of double damages and burden-shifting framework to sub. (2) (b). The text and case law make clear that the circuit court has broad discretion under sub. (2) (b) to choose not to award a penalty and that, even when a penalty is appropriate, the court has discretion to award a penalty amounting to less than double damages. Johnson v. Roma II - Waterford LLC, 2013 WI App 38, 346 Wis. 2d 612, 829 N.W.2d 538, 12-1028.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI 145 (Wis. 2003).
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI 145 (Wis. 2003). “03 (1) (2001-02), [2] Shaun Messer d/b/a Degree Systems, the employer, owed the employee a civil penalty (referred to in the statutes as increased wages) of 70% of the amount of wages due and unpaid pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2), which governs wage claim actions.”
Johnson v. Roma II - Waterford LLC, 2013 WI App 38 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “§ 216 (b), and, separately, a penalty as allowed under a provision in the state wage law, Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2)(b) (2011-12). 3 In addition, Johnson requested approximately $112,000 in attorney's fees under fee-shifting provisions in 29 U.”
Lynch v. Crossroads Counseling Ctr., Inc., 2004 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “On Lynch's appeal, we affirm the circuit court's decision not to impose a greater penalty under Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2) (2001-02). 1 However, with respect to the court's award of attorney fees under Wis.”
Kruczek v. Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev., 2005 WI App 12 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “The only penalties specified in Wis. Stat. § 109.11 are monetary damages.”
Wolnak v. Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgeons of Cent. Wisconsin, 2005 WI App 217 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “The decisions whether to impose a penalty under Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2)(a) or award costs under Wis.”
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1 The trial court ruled that the purpose of Wis. Stat. § 109.11 was to penalize employers who failed to timely pay their employees, regardless whether those wages were paid prior to court action.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees Local 1901 v. Brown Cnty., 432 N.W.2d 571 (Wis. 1988). “The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 1901 (AFSCME) asserts *730 that Brown county, as the employer, is liable for the penalties described in sec. 109.11(2), Stats., because the employees did not receive the retroactive wages within 31 days,…”
Carroll v. Stryker Corp., 658 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011). “Carroll’s complaint sought a little over $67,000 in damages (the commission on the Aurora deal plus a 50% civil penalty authorized by Wis. Stat. § 109.11 ) in addition to “costs, disbursements, and attorney’s fees.”
Daniel Sarauer v. Int'l Ass'n of M, 966 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2020). “” Contra Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2)(a)–(b). And any other framing of the claim, though not depending on the embedded federal question supporting jurisdiction of the unfair labor practice claims, would be within the district court’s sound and unchallenged assertion of supplemental…”
German v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2000 WI 62 (Wis. 2000). “§ 109.11(3) subjects an employer with the ability to pay wages due, but who intentionally fails to do so with the intent to obtain a reduction in the debt or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder or defraud the employee, to a fine of not more than $550, 90 days in jail,…”
Gilbertson v. City of Sheboygan, 165 F. Supp. 3d 742 (E.D. Wis. 2016). “See § 109.11(2)(a) (court “may order the employer to pay to the employee, in addition to the amount of wages due and unpaid .”
Pfister v. Milwaukee Econ. Dev. Corp., 576 N.W.2d 554 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “[3] The potential civil penalty is set forth in § 109.11(2)(a), STATS., which provides, in part: a circuit court may order the employer to pay to the employe, in addition to the amount of wages due and unpaid and in addition to or in lieu of the criminal penalties .”
— Wis. Stat. § 109.11(1) — 2 cases
Kenosha Fire Fighters, Local Union No. 414 v. City of Kenosha, 484 N.W.2d 152 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1 The trial court ruled that the purpose of Wis. Stat. § 109.11 was to penalize employers who failed to timely pay their employees, regardless whether those wages were paid prior to court action.”
— Wis. Stat. § 109.11(2) — 11 cases
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI 145 (Wis. 2003). “03 (1) (2001-02), [2] Shaun Messer d/b/a Degree Systems, the employer, owed the employee a civil penalty (referred to in the statutes as increased wages) of 70% of the amount of wages due and unpaid pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2), which governs wage claim actions.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees Local 1901 v. Brown Cnty., 432 N.W.2d 571 (Wis. 1988). “The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 1901 (AFSCME) asserts *730 that Brown county, as the employer, is liable for the penalties described in sec. 109.11(2), Stats., because the employees did not receive the retroactive wages within 31 days,…”
Kenosha Fire Fighters, Local Union No. 414 v. City of Kenosha, 484 N.W.2d 152 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
German v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 589 N.W.2d 651 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1 The trial court ruled that the purpose of Wis. Stat. § 109.11 was to penalize employers who failed to timely pay their employees, regardless whether those wages were paid prior to court action.”
— Wis. Stat. § 109.11(2)(a) — 6 cases
Pfister v. Milwaukee Econ. Dev. Corp., 576 N.W.2d 554 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “[3] The potential civil penalty is set forth in § 109.11(2)(a), STATS., which provides, in part: a circuit court may order the employer to pay to the employe, in addition to the amount of wages due and unpaid and in addition to or in lieu of the criminal penalties .”
Shirk v. Bowling, Inc., 2001 WI 36 (Wis. 2001).
Gilbertson v. City of Sheboygan, 165 F. Supp. 3d 742 (E.D. Wis. 2016). “See § 109.11(2)(a) (court “may order the employer to pay to the employee, in addition to the amount of wages due and unpaid .”
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1 The trial court ruled that the purpose of Wis. Stat. § 109.11 was to penalize employers who failed to timely pay their employees, regardless whether those wages were paid prior to court action.”
John P. Halusan v. The Scan Grp., Inc. (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 109.11(2)(b) — 8 cases
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI 145 (Wis. 2003). “03 (1) (2001-02), [2] Shaun Messer d/b/a Degree Systems, the employer, owed the employee a civil penalty (referred to in the statutes as increased wages) of 70% of the amount of wages due and unpaid pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2), which governs wage claim actions.”
Johnson v. Roma II - Waterford LLC, 2013 WI App 38 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “§ 216 (b), and, separately, a penalty as allowed under a provision in the state wage law, Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2)(b) (2011-12). 3 In addition, Johnson requested approximately $112,000 in attorney's fees under fee-shifting provisions in 29 U.”
Lynch v. Crossroads Counseling Ctr., Inc., 2004 WI App 114 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “On Lynch's appeal, we affirm the circuit court's decision not to impose a greater penalty under Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2) (2001-02). 1 However, with respect to the court's award of attorney fees under Wis.”
O'Brien v. Travelers Inn, LLC, 927 N.W.2d 933 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1 The trial court ruled that the purpose of Wis. Stat. § 109.11 was to penalize employers who failed to timely pay their employees, regardless whether those wages were paid prior to court action.”
— Wis. Stat. § 109.11(3) — 3 cases
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI 145 (Wis. 2003). “03 (1) (2001-02), [2] Shaun Messer d/b/a Degree Systems, the employer, owed the employee a civil penalty (referred to in the statutes as increased wages) of 70% of the amount of wages due and unpaid pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 109.11 (2), which governs wage claim actions.”
German v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 2000 WI 62 (Wis. 2000). “§ 109.11(3) subjects an employer with the ability to pay wages due, but who intentionally fails to do so with the intent to obtain a reduction in the debt or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder or defraud the employee, to a fine of not more than $550, 90 days in jail,…”
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1 The trial court ruled that the purpose of Wis. Stat. § 109.11 was to penalize employers who failed to timely pay their employees, regardless whether those wages were paid prior to court action.”
— Wis. Stat. § 109.11(l)(b) — 1 case
Gilbertson v. City of Sheboygan, 165 F. Supp. 3d 742 (E.D. Wis. 2016). “See § 109.11(2)(a) (court “may order the employer to pay to the employee, in addition to the amount of wages due and unpaid .”
— Wis. Stat. § 109.11(l)(c) — 1 case
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI App 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). “1 The trial court ruled that the purpose of Wis. Stat. § 109.11 was to penalize employers who failed to timely pay their employees, regardless whether those wages were paid prior to court action.”
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.