PTO Payout Laws: Does Your State Require It When You Leave a Job?
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 13, 2026). · 11 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Whether an employer has to cash out your unused vacation or PTO when you leave a job is one of the most misunderstood questions in employment law, mostly because the honest answer is «it depends on your state,» not a single national rule. Federal law has nothing to say about it at all. The U.S. Department of Labor states plainly that it «cannot help you recover vacation pay» because the Fair Labor Standards Act does not require employers to offer vacation, holiday, or sick pay in the first place.
That leaves the answer entirely to state law, and states do not fall into a simple yes-or-no split. A useful, accurate way to think about it is three groups: states where earned vacation legally becomes wages that cannot be taken away, states where the payout obligation only exists because your employer's own policy created it, and states where the law either permits forfeiture outright or has never addressed the question at all.
Does My State Require PTO Payout? Start Here
The honest first answer for most workers is: it depends on whether your employer's own policy promises a payout, not on a blanket state law. Only a minority of states force payout regardless of what the policy says. The tables below sort every state into the category that actually governs it.
States Where Earned Vacation Legally Becomes Wages
In this group, once vacation time is earned under an employer's plan, it is treated the same as money already worked for, meaning it generally cannot simply be taken back through a forfeiture clause. A few of these states still allow forfeiture if the employer discloses it in writing in advance (New York, Wisconsin, Wyoming, North Carolina), which is an important nuance: the protection is against surprise forfeiture, not against a clearly disclosed policy that never created the entitlement in the first place.
| State | What Happens to Unused PTO | The Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| California | Cannot be forfeited once earned; must be paid out at final pay rate. | Lab. Code § 227.3, use-it-or-lose-it banned outright. |
| Colorado | Cannot be forfeited once earned; the statutory wages definition includes vacation pay. | Colorado Wage Act. |
| Illinois | Cannot be forfeited once earned, folded into the general wage-payment statute rather than a dedicated vacation section. | 820 ILCS 115/5. |
| Louisiana | Vacation actually earned under the employer's own policy cannot be forfeited, and any contract clause purporting to forfeit earned wages on separation is void. | R.S. 23:631(D), R.S. 23:634. |
| Massachusetts | Treated as wages under the Wage Act and must be paid on the same discharge-day deadline as regular wages, per a 2022 Massachusetts high court decision. | Reuter v. City of Methuen, 489 Mass. 465 (2022); M.G.L. c.149 § 148. |
| Montana | Once earned under employer policy, becomes wages; use-it-or-lose-it forfeiture is not allowed, though employers may impose accrual caps. | Montana Dept. of Labor & Industry, Wage and Hour FAQ. |
| North Carolina | If an employer offers vacation pay, earned vacation cannot be forfeited unless the employer has a written forfeiture clause the employee was notified of in writing in advance. | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.13. |
| Maryland | Accrued leave counts as wages by default, unless the employer maintained and disclosed a written policy limiting payout before the employee was hired. | Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. § 3-505(b). |
| Maine | For employers with more than 10 employees, vacation earned since January 1, 2023 has the same status as wages and must be paid out; smaller and public employers are exempt from the mandate. | 26 M.R.S. § 626. |
| Rhode Island | Employees with at least one year of service must be paid accrued vacation under any written or verbal company policy. | R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-14-4. |
| Wisconsin | Must be paid out if the employer has a written vacation policy that does not itself include a forfeiture clause. | Wis. Dept. of Workforce Development guidance. |
| Wyoming | Treated as payable wages unless the employer's written policy states accrued vacation is forfeited on termination and the employee acknowledged that policy in writing. | Wyo. Stat. § 27-4-501(a)(iii). |
| New York | No employer is required to offer vacation pay, but if one does, use-it-or-lose-it forfeiture is only enforceable with prior written notice to the employee of the policy. | N.Y. Lab. Law § 198-c. |
| South Carolina | No accrual mandate, but once an employer's policy promises vacation, South Carolina's statutory wages definition treats it as due wages enforceable through the same deadline and damages rules as regular pay. | S.C. Code § 41-10-10. |
| Kentucky | No accrual mandate, but once vacation vests under an agreed or established employer policy, it falls within Kentucky's statutory definition of wages owed on separation. | KRS 337.010. |
| Iowa | No accrual mandate, but once vacation is due under an employer's agreement or policy, it is statutorily defined as wages payable pro rata on separation. | Iowa Code ch. 91A. |
| Pennsylvania | No accrual mandate, but Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law defines vacation as a fringe benefit that becomes an enforceable wage once an employer's plan or agreement promises it. | 43 P.S. § 260.2a. |
States Where Payout Depends Entirely on Company Policy
In this larger group, state law is silent or explicitly defers to whatever the employer's written policy says. If the policy promises a payout, it is generally enforceable as a contract matter. If the policy includes a use-it-or-lose-it clause, that clause is generally enforceable too. Several states in this group have simply not had their PTO rules independently confirmed against a primary source in this review; those are marked accordingly rather than guessed at.
| State | What Happens to Unused PTO | The Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Texas | Only owed if a written employer policy or agreement promises it; a policy can lawfully include a forfeiture clause, and the Texas Workforce Commission publishes a sample one. | Tex. Lab. Code § 61.001(7)(B). |
| Florida | No statutory mandate at all; entirely governed by whatever the employer's policy or contract says. | Fla. Stat. ch. 448. |
| Georgia | No statutory mandate; no state case law was confirmed addressing vacation forfeiture, so treat this purely as a policy question. | No statute located. |
| Tennessee | Owed only if the employer's own written policy or labor agreement requires it; without one, nothing is owed at separation. | Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-2-103(a)(4). |
| Michigan | Owed only if a written contract or written policy promises it. | MCL § 408.471. |
| New Jersey | No state-law mandate. The labor department states that fringe benefits like vacation, severance, and holiday pay are not required by New Jersey law, but an employer that chooses to offer them must administer them uniformly under its own established policy or employment agreement. | N.J. Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development, Wage and Hour Compliance FAQ. |
| Virginia | The state's wage definition does not include accrued vacation or PTO; payout is entirely a matter of employer policy. | Va. Code § 40.1-29. |
| West Virginia | Vacation is defined as a fringe benefit; if the employer's agreement provides for it, it must be paid per the agreement's own schedule. If there is no such agreement, the wage law does not independently create a payout right. | W. Va. Code § 21-5-1. |
| Arizona | No PTO-payout statute; separation payout is governed entirely by employer policy or contract. | No statute located. |
| Alaska | No dedicated payout mandate, but Alaska regulation counts accrued vacation as part of an employee's rate of pay when the employer's contract makes it a condition of employment, meaning a genuine written promise is enforceable. | 8 AAC 15.160; AS 23.05.160. |
| Connecticut | Payable only if the employer's policy or collective bargaining agreement provides for it; absent one, there is no independent mandate. | Conn. Gen. Stat. ch. 558. |
| Delaware | Payable only if the employer is party to an agreement covering it, and must then be paid within 30 days of when payment becomes due. | 19 Del. C. § 1109 (benefits and wage supplements). |
| New Hampshire | No New Hampshire-specific statute located; treat as a policy-controlled state pending confirmation. | Not independently confirmed. |
| New Mexico | No statute mandates payout; some case-law annotations suggest courts may treat vacation earned as a fixed, definite amount under a policy as wages, but no controlling case was independently verified, so do not rely on this as settled law. | Not independently confirmed. |
| Oklahoma | The statute that likely governs vacation-as-agreed-benefit disputes could not be fully read this review; treat Oklahoma as unresolved rather than assume either outcome. | 40 O.S. § 165.11 (not fully confirmed). |
| Oregon | Not independently researched this review; do not assume either a mandate or a bare policy-controls rule without checking directly with Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries. | Not independently confirmed. |
| South Dakota | No general private-sector PTO statute was found after two independent reviews of the state's wage-payment chapter. | S.D. Codified Laws ch. 60-11. |
| Missouri | Confirmed directly on the state labor department's own page: vacation, holiday, and severance pay are discretionary employer benefits absent a contract term. | Mo. Dept. of Labor, Wages, Hours and Dismissal Rights. |
| Utah | No vacation or PTO provision exists anywhere in the relevant chapter of Utah's wage statute; this is confirmed statutory silence, not an affirmative rule either way. | Utah Code title 34, ch. 28. |
| Idaho | No general mandate; vacation is treated as wages only once an employer's own written policy creates a specific accrual and eligibility entitlement. | Idaho Dept. of Labor guidance. |
| Kansas | No dedicated statute; resolved instead through case law interpreting the state wage act's broad definition of wages, not independently confirmed this review. | K.S.A. 44-313(c). |
| Indiana | The state's own legislative site could not be verified this review. Secondary sources describe a policy-controlled system with enforceable use-it-or-lose-it clauses, but treat this as unconfirmed pending direct verification. | Not independently confirmed. |
| Arkansas | No statute located; treat as a policy-controlled state pending confirmation, since Arkansas's official code portal could not be verified this review. | Not independently confirmed. |
| Ohio | Could not be verified this review; Ohio's official code site was unreachable. Do not assume either a mandate or a policy-controls rule until confirmed directly. | Not independently confirmed. |
| District of Columbia | No D.C. Code section specifying a payout rule was independently located this review. | Not independently confirmed. |
| Nebraska | Becomes a legally enforceable wage only once the employer has agreed to pay it under its own plan; Nebraska does not independently require vacation accrual or payout, so it belongs with the policy-controlled states, not with the unconditional-mandate group despite some published lists grouping it there. | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1229. |
| Nevada | Nevada's paid-leave statute makes payout discretionary. The employer may pay out unused leave at separation but is not required to. | NRS 608.0197. |
States Where the Law Leans Toward the Employer, or Permits Conditional Forfeiture
| State | What Happens to Unused PTO | The Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Hawaii | Hawaii courts have held that unused vacation pay is not a wage under the plain language of the state wage statute, meaning the state wage-claim process generally will not enforce a vacation-payout dispute. | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388-1. |
| Washington | No general statutory payout mandate. The state labor agency treats vacation as a discretionary, voluntary benefit outside the scope of its wage-complaint enforcement, directing disputes to private legal action instead. | Wash. Dept. of Labor & Industries guidance. |
| Minnesota | No independent statutory mandate. The state's highest court has held that vacation pay is a wage once earned under an employer's contract or policy, but the underlying right to it, and any conditions on receiving it, is «wholly contractual» and left entirely to the employer's policy. | Minn. Stat. § 181.13(a). |
| North Dakota | Not an unconditional mandate. State law lets a private employer withhold PTO payment at a voluntary separation specifically when the employer gave written notice of the limitation at hiring, the employee had worked there less than one year, and the employee gave fewer than 5 days' notice of quitting. | N.D. Cent. Code § 34-14-09.2. |
| Vermont | Not currently mandated. Vermont's employment-practices chapter contains no vacation or PTO payout section, so payout depends on the employer's own policy or employment agreement. | 21 V.S.A. ch. 5 (no vacation or PTO payout provision). |
| Alabama | No statutory mandate. Alabama's labor department FAQ redirects wholesale to federal law, which does not address vacation pay. | No statute located. |
| Mississippi | No Mississippi statute mandates PTO payout at separation; the state's employment security agency shows no wage-claim function addressing this at all. | No statute located. |
The "Only 5 States" Claim Is Wrong, and Here Is Why
A number of payroll-software blogs and HR compliance sites repeat a version of the claim that only California, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota require PTO payout. Two of those five do not belong grouped as unconditional mandates alongside California, Colorado, and Montana.
Nebraska's Wage Payment and Collection Act defines wages to include fringe benefits, including vacation leave, but only «when previously agreed to and conditions stipulated have been met by the employee.» In plain terms, Nebraska does not independently require an employer to offer vacation or pay it out. It requires the employer to honor its own promise once made. That is a real protection, but it is conditional on the employer's plan, not an unconditional statutory mandate the way California's is.
North Dakota's statute is even more specific about its own limits. N.D. Cent. Code section 34-14-09.2 lets a private employer withhold PTO payment at a voluntary separation specifically where the employer gave written notice of the limitation at hiring, the employee had been there fewer than 12 months, and the employee gave fewer than 5 days' notice of quitting. That is a real, live-verified statute, and it plainly permits conditional withholding rather than banning it outright. Grouping North Dakota with California misstates what the North Dakota law actually does.
Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina, and Rhode Island all have real statutory or case-law protections against PTO forfeiture too, several of them as strong as California's for accrued time, and none of those states shows up on most versions of the «only 5 states» list. If you are trying to figure out where your state actually falls, the categories and tables above reflect what each state's own law or agency guidance says, not an aggregator summary.
Use-It-or-Lose-It Policies: When They Are Legal
A use-it-or-lose-it policy tells employees that unused vacation simply disappears at year's end, or on separation, rather than carrying over or being paid out. Whether this kind of policy is enforceable depends entirely on which of the three groups above your state falls into.
In states like California, Colorado, Illinois, Montana, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, a use-it-or-lose-it clause applied to time already earned is not enforceable; the earned time is treated as wages regardless of what the policy says. In New York, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and North Carolina, this kind of forfeiture clause is enforceable, but only if the employer put it in writing and gave the employee notice of it in advance; an undisclosed or after-the-fact forfeiture is not. In most other states, a written use-it-or-lose-it policy disclosed to employees is straightforwardly enforceable, and an employer that never promised payout in the first place owes nothing regardless of a forfeiture clause at all.
Does Being Fired "For Cause" Change the Answer?
Generally, no. Whether unused PTO must be paid out turns on the state's rule and the employer's policy language, not on whether the separation was voluntary or involuntary, or whether the employee was fired for cause. A few states do split their rule by separation type for the underlying final-paycheck deadline (see the final paycheck laws hub for how discharge and resignation deadlines differ by state), but the PTO-payout question itself is typically governed by the same policy or statute regardless of why the employment ended, unless the employer's own written policy specifically ties forfeiture to a for-cause termination.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney licensed in your state if you need help evaluating your own PTO policy or a specific dispute.
Information last verified on 2026-08-12. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Related Resources
For the deadline your employer has to issue your last paycheck (a separate question from whether unused PTO gets paid out), see the final paycheck laws hub, which covers all 50 states plus D.C. If you think your employer is holding back money it shouldn't, see can an employer withhold your paycheck for what deductions are actually legal. If a deadline has already passed and you have not been paid, see unpaid wages: how to file a claim for the federal and state complaint process.
Last updated: 2026-08-12.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do companies have to pay out PTO when you quit or get fired?
It depends entirely on your state and, in most states, on your employer's own written policy. There is no federal requirement at all. A minority of states, including California, Colorado, Illinois, Montana, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, treat earned vacation as wages that cannot be forfeited. Most other states leave the answer to whatever the employer's policy says.
Which states require PTO payout upon termination?
California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine (for employers with more than 10 employees), Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming all have a statutory or case-law basis requiring payout once vacation is earned, though several of these allow a properly disclosed forfeiture policy. Nebraska and North Dakota are often listed alongside these states, but their rules are conditional, not unconditional, mandates.
Does California require PTO payout?
Yes. Under California Labor Code section 227.3, accrued and unused vacation is treated as vested wages that cannot be forfeited through a use-it-or-lose-it policy, and it must be paid out at the employee's final rate of pay upon separation.
Does Texas require PTO payout?
No, not by statute. Under the Texas Payday Law, accrued leave is only owed at separation if a written employer policy or agreement promises it. If no such policy exists, nothing is owed. Employers may lawfully include a forfeiture clause in a written PTO policy.
Does Florida require PTO payout?
No. Florida has no statute addressing vacation or PTO payout at all. It is governed entirely by the employer's own policy or employment contract.
Does Illinois require PTO payout?
Yes. Illinois law treats earned, unused vacation as final compensation that generally cannot be forfeited, folded into the state's general wage-payment statute rather than a dedicated vacation law.
Does Colorado require PTO payout?
Yes. Colorado's statutory definition of wages includes vacation pay an employer provides, and accrued vacation pay earned under the terms of any agreement must be paid upon separation.
Does New York require PTO payout?
No employer in New York is required to offer vacation pay at all. If an employer does offer it, New York allows a use-it-or-lose-it forfeiture policy, but only if the employer gave the employee prior written notice of that policy; an undisclosed forfeiture clause is not enforceable.
Does Georgia require PTO payout?
No. Georgia has no statute addressing PTO or vacation payout, and no independently confirmed case law on the question either. It is governed entirely by whatever the employer's policy says.
Does Maryland require PTO payout?
Generally yes, by default. Maryland treats accrued, unused leave as wages that must be paid at termination, unless the employer maintained a written policy limiting payout and notified the employee of that policy at the time of hire.
Does Massachusetts require PTO payout?
Yes. Massachusetts treats accrued vacation as wages under its Wage Act, and a 2022 decision from the state's highest court confirmed unpaid accrued vacation is recoverable on the same terms and deadlines as regular unpaid wages.
Does Arizona require PTO payout?
No. Arizona has no PTO-payout statute; separation payout is governed entirely by the employer's policy or contract.
Does Indiana require PTO payout?
This could not be independently confirmed against Indiana's own official code in this review. Secondary sources describe a policy-controlled system with enforceable use-it-or-lose-it clauses, but treat that as unconfirmed and check directly with Indiana's labor department for current guidance.
Can an employer make you forfeit unused PTO if you're fired for cause?
In most states, whether you were fired for cause does not change the underlying PTO rule; it depends on the state's rule and the policy language, not the reason for separation. An employer's written policy could specifically tie forfeiture to a for-cause termination, which would generally be enforceable in a policy-controlled state.
Is unlimited PTO handled differently for payout purposes?
In several states, yes, because unlimited or flexible PTO policies are structured so that time never technically accrues, which some employers argue removes it from wage-payout statutes that key off of earned or accrued time. Whether that structuring actually works depends on your state's specific statute and how clearly the policy is written; this is an evolving area, so review your own state's rule above and consult an attorney if a payout is denied under an unlimited-PTO policy.
Updates
Corrected the statutory citations for Tennessee, Delaware and Vermont, replaced the New Jersey entry with the state labor department's own guidance, and removed an unverified reference to pending Vermont legislation.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Labor Code
§ 227.3In forcecited in 3 of our articles
Unless otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement, whenever a contract of employment or employer policy provides for paid vacations, and an employee is terminated without having taken off his vested vacation time, all vested vacation shall be paid to him as wages at his final rate in accordance with such contract of employment or employer policy respecting eligibility or time served; provided, however, that an employment contract or employer policy shall not provide for forfeiture of vested vacation time upon termination. The Labor Commissioner or a designated representative, in the resolution of any dispute with regard to vested vacation time, shall apply the principles of equity and fairness.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 111 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2012, 209 Cal. App. 4th 62)“…o pay vacation benefits due upon termination of employment (Lab. Code, § 227.3); (6) failure to pay overtime, vacation…”
- Church v. Jamison (California Court of Appeal 2006, 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 166)“…has not been used when the employment ends is addressed by Labor Code section 227.3, which provides in full: “Unless otherw…”
- Henry v. Amrol, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1990, 222 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 1)“…[i.e., a “use it or lose it” policy], waive his right under Labor Code section 227.3 to be paid for accrued but unused vacat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Final Paycheck Laws by State: Deadlines, Penalties, and PTO Payout Rules, California Final Paycheck Laws: Labor Code 201, 202, 203 Explained
North Dakota Century Code
§ 34-14-09.2Limitations on accrued paid time off - InvestigationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
If an employee separates from employment voluntarily, a private employer may withhold payment for accrued paid time off if: At the time of hiring, the employer provided the employee written notice of the limitation on payment of accrued paid time off; The employee has been employed by the employer for less than one year; and The employee gave the employer less than five days' written or verbal notice. If an employee separates from employment, a private employer may withhold payment for paid time off if: The paid time off was awarded by the employer but not yet earned by the employee; and Before awarding the paid time off, the employer provided the employee written notice of the limitation on payment of awarded paid time off. As provided under section 34-14-05, an employee may report a violation under this section. If a report of violation is made within thirty days of the alleged violation, the labor commissioner shall investigate the merits of the claim. If a report is made more than thirty days following the alleged violation, the commissioner may investigate the merits of the claim.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Also relied on in: North Dakota Final Paycheck Laws: No Accelerated Deadline
Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 50-2-103Payment of employees in private employments.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a)(1) All wages or compensation of employees in private employment shall be due and payable not less frequently than once per month. (2) For each employer that makes wage payments once monthly to employees in private employments, all wages or compensation earned and unpaid prior to the first day…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at tn.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied Tenn. Code Ann. 50-2-103 to workplace break rights. Yates v. Hertz Corp. (2003) held a fired at-will employee may pursue retaliatory discharge for exercising the subsection (d) thirty-minute break right; Johnson v. Koch Foods, Inc. (2009) found no authority for a private suit enforcing the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Richard Michelhaugh v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2020)“…ristol Mem. Hosp., No. 72, 1986 WL 10924 at *4 (Tenn.1986); Tenn. Code Ann.§ 50-2-103(a)(4). The Tennessee Supreme Court has…”
- Kim Hardy v. Tournament Players Club at Southwind, Inc. d/b/a "TPC Southwind" (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2015)“…r sections of the TWRA, including §§ 50-2-103 and 50-2-104. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 50-2-103(j) & 50-2-104. Other sections of the TW…”
- Yates v. Hertz Corp. (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 2003, 285 F. Supp. 2d 1104)✓An airport security guard was fired immediately after returning from the break he took under Tenn. Code Ann. 50-2-103(d); the court held that exercising that statutory rest break right can support a retaliatory discharge claim, and denied Hertz summary judgment.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Final Paycheck Laws: The Payday-or-21-Days Rule
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 48: LABOR
§ 48-1229Terms, definedIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
For purposes of the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) Employee means any individual permitted to work by an employer pursuant to an employment relationship or who has contracted to sell the goods or services of an employer and to be compensated by commission. Services performed by an individual for an employer shall be deemed to be employment, unless it is shown that (a) such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such services, both under his or her contract of service and in fact, (b) such service is either outside the usual course of business for which such service is performed or such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed, and (c) such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fisher v. PayFlex Systems USA (Nebraska Supreme Court 2013, 285 Neb. 808)“…ess or disability. 11. Employer and Employee: Wages. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1229 (Reissue 2010), upon an employee’s…”
- Coffey v. Planet Group (Nebraska Supreme Court 2014)“…plain, direct, or unambiguous. 6. Contracts: Wages. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1229(4) (Reissue 2010) allows an emplo…”
- Drought v. Marsh (Nebraska Supreme Court 2020, 304 Neb. 860)“…ntracts: Wages: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1229 (Cum. Supp. 2018), an…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Final Paycheck Laws: The Two-Week Deadline
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 181: EMPLOYMENT
§ 181.13PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES PROMPTLYIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) When any employer employing labor within this state discharges an employee, the wages or commissions actually earned and unpaid at the time of the discharge are immediately due and payable upon demand of the employee. Wages are actually earned and unpaid if the employee was not paid for all time worked at the employee's regular rate of pay or at the rate required by law, including any applicable statute, regulation, rule, ordinance, government resolution or policy, contract, or other legal authority, whichever rate of pay is greater. If the employee's earned wages and commissions are not paid within 24 hours after demand, whether the employment was by the day, hour, week, month, or piece or by commissions, the employer is in default. In addition to recovering the wages and commissions actually earned and unpaid, the discharged employee may charge and collect a penalty equal to the amount of the employee's average daily earnings at the employee's regular rate of pay or the rate required by law, whichever rate is greater, for each day up to 15 days, that the employer is in default, until full payment or other settlement, satisfactory to the discharged employee, is made.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 65 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. (2007) held section 181.13(a) is a timing statute setting when a discharged employee must be paid, not a substantive right to wages, while treating paid time off as wages under it; Holman v. CPT CORP. (1990) held its "actually earned" language is not defined by the commission-salesperson statute.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2007, 741 N.W.2d 117)✓A dialysis technician fired for misconduct sued for her accrued paid time off; the court held PTO is wages under section 181.13(a) but that the section is a timing statute, so a handbook term denying pay in lieu of PTO to workers fired for misconduct was enforceable.
- Tischer v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Cambridge (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2005, 693 N.W.2d 426)“…n Count I of this action, Tischer sought unpaid wages under Minn.Stat. § 181.13 (2004) and in Count II she sought damag…”
- Holman v. CPT CORP. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1990, 457 N.W.2d 740)✓A saleswoman fired four days before closing a Mayo Clinic sale sued for the commission; the court held the independent-contractor definition in 181.145 does not fix what is actually earned under 181.13, and whether she earned it was a fact question, so summary judgment was error.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Final Paycheck Laws: The Demand-Triggered 24-Hour Rule
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 408.471DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this act: (a) "Department" means the department of licensing and regulatory affairs. (b) "Employ" means to engage or permit to work. (c) "Employee" means an individual employed by an employer. (d) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or corporation, public or private; this state or an agency of this state; a city, county, village, township, school district, or intermediate school district; an institution of higher education; or an individual acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer who employs 1 or more individuals. Except as specifically provided in the franchise agreement, as between a franchisee and franchisor, the franchisee is considered the sole employer of workers for whom the franchisee provides a benefit plan or pays wages. (e) "Fringe benefits" means compensation due an employee pursuant to a written contract or written policy for holiday, time off for sickness or injury, time off for personal reasons or vacation, bonuses, authorized expenses incurred during the course of employment, and contributions made on behalf of an employee.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 41 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Detroit Public Schools v. Conn (Michigan Court of Appeals 2014, 308 Mich. App. 234)“…ayment of Wages and Fringe Benefits Act (PWFBA or the act), MCL 408.471 et seq. This Court subsequently consoli…”
- Cork v. Applebee’s of Michigan, Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 2000, 239 Mich. App. 311)“…ged violations of the wages and fringe benefits act (wfba), MCL 408.471 et seq.-, MSA 17.277(1)…”
- Buckley v. Professional Plaza Clinic Corp. (Michigan Court of Appeals 2008, 281 Mich. App. 224)“…1 MCL 408.471 et seq. 2…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Final Paycheck Laws: Due Diligence, Not a Day Count
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 337: WAGES AND HOURS
§ 337.010Definitions for chapterIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: (a) "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the Department of Workplace Standards under the direction and supervision of the secretary of the Education and Labor Cabinet; (b) "Department" means the Department of Workplace Standards in the Education and Labor Cabinet; (c) 1. "Wages" includes any compensation due to an employee by reason of his or her employment, including salaries, commissions, vested vacation pay, overtime pay, severance or dismissal pay, earned bonuses, and any other similar advantages agreed upon by the employer and the employee or provided to employees as an established policy. The wages shall be payable in legal tender of the United States, checks on banks, direct deposits, or payroll card accounts convertible into cash on demand at full face value, subject to the allowances made in this chapter. However, an employee may not be charged an activation fee and the payroll card account shall provide the employee with the ability, without charge, to make at least one (1) withdrawal per pay period for any amount up to and including the full account balance. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 69 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- City of Louisville, Division of Fire v. Fire Service Managers Ass'n Ex Rel. Kaelin (Kentucky Supreme Court 2006, 212 S.W.3d 89)“…inistrative regulations of the executive director . . . . KRS 337.010(2) (emphasis added). 803 KAR 1:070 is t…”
- Louisville Water Co. v. Wells (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 1984, 664 S.W.2d 525)“…on we must determine is whether the term “city,” as used in KRS 337.010{3)(e), includes agencies or municipally…”
- Noel v. Season-Sash, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 1986, 722 S.W.2d 901)“…promise. In fact, the definition of "employee" contained in KRS 337.010(1)(e) referred to in the complaint incl…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report, Kentucky Final Paycheck Laws: The 14-Day Rule Explained
West Virginia Code
§ 21-5-1Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this article: (a) The term “firm” includes any partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, division of a corporation, the administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased individual, or the receiver, trustee, or successor of any of the same, or officer thereof, employing any person. (b) The term “employee” or “employees” includes any person suffered or permitted to work by a person, firm, or corporation, except those classified as an independent contractor pursuant to §21-5I-4 of this code. (c) The term “wages” means compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, whether the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, commission, or other basis of calculation. As used in §21-5-4, §21-5-5, §21-5-8a, §21-5-10, and §21-5-12 of this code, the term “wages” shall also include then accrued fringe benefits capable of calculation and payable directly to an employee: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall require fringe benefits to be calculated contrary to any agreement between an employer and his or her employees which does not contradict the provisions of this article.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 36 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Massachusetts v. Morash (Supreme Court of the United States 1989, 490 U.S. 107)“…9 (1986); Wash. Rev. Code §§49.48.010 , 49.48.020 (1987); W. Va. Code §§21-5-1 , 21-5-4 (1985 and Supp. 1988); Wis. S…”
- Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2002, 303 F.3d 496)“…BOR READY, INC. Virginia’s Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va. Code § 21-5-1 et seq. He brought this suit as a propo…”
- Grace Lontz Beverly Pettit v. Joyce Tharp Elizabeth Doak James Baish Sandeep Thakrar Monica, Llc, D/B/A Holiday Inn Express (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2005, 413 F.3d 435)“…ation of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va.Code § 21-5-1 et seq. * Defendants r…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: West Virginia Final Paycheck Laws: Double Damages and the 7-Day Safe Harbor
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 388: WAGES AND OTHER COMPENSATION, PAYMENT OF
§ 388-1DefinitionsIn force
As used in this chapter: "Director" means the director of labor and industrial relations. "Electronic transfer" means any transfer of funds, other than transactions originated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, which is initiated through an electronic terminal or computer so as to order, instruct, or authorize a federally insured depository institution to debit or credit an account. "Electronic transfer" includes but is not limited to point-of-sale transfers, automated teller machine transactions, direct deposits or withdrawals of funds, and transfers initiated by a telephone conversation. "Employ" includes to permit or suffer to work. "Employee" includes any person suffered or permitted to work. "Employer" includes any individual; partnership; association; joint-stock company; trust; corporation; the personal representative of the estate of a deceased individual or the receiver, trustee, or successor of any of the same; general contractor, for purposes of wages owed to the employees of a subcontractor, as those terms are defined in section 388-11.5; employing any person, but shall not include the State or any political subdivision thereof or the United States.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Casumpang v. ILWU LOCAL 142 (Hawaii Supreme Court 2005, 108 Haw. 411)“…was not introduced at trial and (2) “wages,” as defined in HRS § 388-1, does not include vacation pay.…”
- Gurrobat v. HTH Corporation. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2014, 133 Haw. 1)“…o the enforcement of HRS § 481B-14. Id. We explained that HRS § 388-1 defines “wages” as “compensation for la…”
- Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2013, 130 Haw. 130)“…hapter 388 regarding withholding wages appear to apply, as HRS § 388-1 defines “wages” as follows:…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of Virginia, Title 40.1: Labor and Employment
§ 40.1-29Time and medium of payment; withholding wages; written statement of earnings; agreement for forfeiture of wages; proceedings to enforce compliance; penaltiesIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. As used in this section: "Employer" has the same meaning as provided in 29 U.S.C. § 203. "Wages" includes any remuneration an employer owes to an employee, including hourly wages, minimum wages, piece rate wages, day rates, salaries, overtime wages, legally required prevailing wages, commissions, tips, bonuses, and damages available due to the misclassification of an employee in violation of § 40.1-28.7:7. B. All employers operating a business or engaging an individual to perform domestic service shall establish regular pay periods and rates of pay for employees except executive personnel.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 49 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Pallone v. Marshall Legacy Institute (2000) read Va. Code 40.1-29 as then written to give only an administrative remedy and no implied private action. Federal courts split on whether it supports a Bowman discharge claim: Miller v. Washington Workplace, Inc. (2004) allowed one; Vasquez v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc. (2018) rejected one.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Coley v. Historic Hotels, Inc. (Virginia Circuit Court 2000, 60 Va. Cir. 466)“…hat his termination was wrongful in that it is violative of Va. Code § 40.1-29, which provides in its pertinent part:…”
- Pallone v. Marshall Legacy Institute (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2000, 97 F. Supp. 2d 742)“…and (iv) violation of the Virginia Wage Payment Act, Va.Code § 40.1-29. Defendant’s threshold dismissal motion…”
- Massachusetts v. Morash (Supreme Court of the United States 1989, 490 U.S. 107)“…34-28-14 (1988); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21, §§341-345 (1987); Va. Code §40.1-29 (1986); Wash. Rev. Code §§49.48.010 ,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Wage-Theft Overhaul: HB 238 Adds Liquidated and Treble Damages Starting July 1, 2026, Virginia Final Paycheck Laws: No Acceleration, and HB 238's New Cure Deadline
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 44: LABOR AND INDUSTRIES
§ 44-313Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this act: (a) "Employer" means any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, corporation, limited liability company or other organization, the administrator or executor of the estate of a deceased individual, or the receiver, trustee, or successor of any of the same, the state of Kansas or any department, agency or authority of the state, any city, county, school district or other political subdivision, municipality or public corporation and any instrumentality thereof, employing any person. (b) "Employee" means any person allowed or permitted to work by an employer. (c) "Wages" means compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, whether the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, commission or other basis less authorized withholding and deductions. (d) "Secretary" means the secretary of labor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 88 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Campbell v. Husky Hogs, L.L.C. (Supreme Court of Kansas 2011, 292 Kan. 225)“…ling a wage claim under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), K.S.A. 44-313 et seq. The district court…”
- Coma Corp. v. Kansas Department of Labor (Supreme Court of Kansas 2007, 283 Kan. 625)“…f Coma’s reliance upon preemption, it does not dispute that K.S.A. 44-313(b) of the KWPA expansively defines an e…”
- Elkins v. Showcase, Inc. (Supreme Court of Kansas 1985, 237 Kan. 720)“…n employee, pursuant to the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), K.S.A. 44-313 et seq., seeking recovery…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Final Paycheck Laws: Deadline, Penalty, PTO Rules
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 21: Labor, Chapter 5: Employment Practices, Subchapter: WAGES AND MEDIUM OF PAYMENT
§ 342Weekly payment of wagesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a)(1) Any employer that is doing business within the State shall pay each week, in lawful money or checks, the wages earned by each employee to a day not more than six days prior to the date of payment. (2) Notwithstanding subdivision (1) of this subsection, any employer having one or more employees that is doing business within the State may, either: (A) after giving notice to each employee, pay biweekly or semimonthly, in lawful money or checks, each employee the wages earned by the employee to a day not more than six days prior to the date of payment; or (B) pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement pay any employee who is subject to that agreement the wages earned by the employee to a day not more than 13 days prior to the date of payment. (3)(A) An employee of a school district or supervisory union may elect in writing to have a set amount or set percentage of the employee’s after-tax wages withheld by the school district in a district-held bank account each pay period. The percentage or amount withheld shall be determined by the employee.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In Stowell v. Action Moving & Storage, Inc. (2007) the Vermont Supreme Court held that commission payments are wages under section 342 and that withholding them violated section 342(c), entitling the employee to double damages and fees under section 347. State v. Harty (1986) affirmed a conviction under sections 342(a) and 345.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Stowell v. Action Moving & Storage, Inc. (Supreme Court of Vermont 2007, 182 Vt. 98)✓A long-haul trucker resigned and his employer refused to pay the remaining commissions, claiming it had overpaid him; the court held commission payments are wages under section 342, found the employer violated section 342(c), and awarded double damages under section 347.
- State v. Harty (Supreme Court of Vermont 1986, 147 Vt. 400)✓A restaurant operator who was his corporation's sole owner, director, and shareholder was convicted on three counts of not paying employees weekly; the court held he was properly charged as an employer under sections 342(a) and 345 and strictly liable without proof of fraud.
- Zablow v. Department of Employment Security (Supreme Court of Vermont 1979, 137 Vt. 8)“…this was not done, the employer would be violating the law. 21 V.S.A. § 342(a). On other occasions the employer had…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Vermont Final Paycheck Laws: The 72-Hour Rule for Firings
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- U.S. Dept. of Labor, WHD FAQ: employers are not required to provide vacation, holiday, severance, or sick pay under the FLSA(dol.gov).gov
- California Labor Code section 227.3 (accrued vacation as vested wages, no forfeiture)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Colorado Wage Act, vacation pay as wages (CDLE, August 2025)(cdle.colorado.gov).gov
- 820 ILCS 115/5, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (earned vacation cannot be forfeited)(ilga.gov).gov
- North Dakota Century Code Title 34, Chapter 14 (section 34-14-09.2, conditional PTO-withholding statute)(ndlegis.gov).gov
- Nebraska Revised Statute section 48-1229, Wage Payment and Collection Act (fringe benefits defined)(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Texas Labor Code section 61.001(7)(B) and Texas Workforce Commission accrued-leave payout guidance(efte.twc.texas.gov).gov
- Tennessee Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development, wages and breaks FAQ (comparison example of a policy-controlled state)(tn.gov).gov
- Missouri Dept. of Labor and Industrial Relations, Wages, Hours and Dismissal Rights (vacation as discretionary benefit)(labor.mo.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes section 388-1 (wage definition; courts have held vacation pay is not a wage)(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Vermont 21 V.S.A. section 342 (statutory silence on PTO payout; H.295 pending, not enacted)(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- Delaware Code Title 19, Chapter 11, section 1109 (benefits and wage supplements payable within 30 days after payment is required)(delcode.delaware.gov)
- N.J. Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development, Wage and Hour Compliance FAQ (vacation and other fringe benefits not required by New Jersey law)(nj.gov)
- Vermont 21 V.S.A. chapter 5, Employment Practices (full chapter; no vacation or PTO payout provision)(legislature.vermont.gov)
- Tennessee Public Chapter 32 (1999), adding the vacation-pay subdivision to Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-2-103(a)(capitol.tn.gov)