amount as liquidated damages and for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees allowed by the court. An agreement between the employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate is not a defense to the action. The action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by one or more employees. Minn.Stat. § 177.33 (emphasis added). Appellants contend that their claim for unpaid gratuities falls within section 177.33’s provision for recovery of “wages and overtime compensation.” We disagree. The Minnesota courts and legislature have long distinguished between compensation and gratuity. See Phelps v. Benson, 252 Minn. 457, 470, 90 N.W.2d 533, 542 (1958) (noting that gratuitously means without compensation); Brown v. Tonka Corp., 519 N.W.2d 474, 477 (Minn.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). The Act also distinguishes the terms by their
holding that like pension benefits stock options are a form of deferred compensation for efforts expended during the marriage holding that unemployment compensation benefits received by plaintiff are collateral source and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits holding that employees vacation benefits are form of compensation for services rendered and are not gratuity holding that probation department employees are not county employees holding that vacation pay is shortterm compensation because an employee must work six months before getting any vacation vacation pay was computed on the basis of the employees weekly earnings and if an employee was laid off he received vacation pay on a pro rata basis