his 2001-2002 bonus as a part of his overall compensation package. This court is not confronted with a claim for statutory penalties involving a pro rata portion of an unvested bonus, a profit sharing plan, or a gratuitous bonus subject solely to the employer’s discretion. When an employee contracts for a bonus in exchange for his services to the. employer, and the right to that bonus vests prior to the employee’s termination, an employer’s failure to pay that unpaid bonus within 24 hours of the employee’s demand subjects the employer to a claim for statutory penalties under MinmStat. § 181.13. Applying the reasoning in Brown to the matter at hand, we conclude that respondent’s earned bonus constituted a “wage” for purposes of section 181.13. The decision in 36 N.W.2d 496, 499 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Appellant argues- that the plain statutory
holding equitable subrogation is to be granted to prevent unjust enrichment even though the party seeking it is negligent as long as there was no prejudice to the other party ie if the refinancing mortgagee could establish the intervening mortgagee would be no worse off than if the original first mortgage had not been satisfied holding that it is not holding that an award may be in excess of the arbitrators powers if it requires the public employer to perform an act that is prohibited by law or if it does not involve legitimate terms and conditions of employment holding that a bonus could be a wage if it was an inducement rather than a reward ie if it was previously agreed to and the stipulated conditions were satisfied holding that a bonus calculated based on a percentage of the companys profits was a wage under colorados wagepenalty statute because the bonus was vested and determinable as of the date of termination was disproportionately large in comparison to the employees salary and was owed as compensation for services performed by the employee