was based, in part, on the contractual nature of vacation benefits: It is beyond dispute that an agreement to pay vacation pay to employees made to them before they performed their services, and based upon the length of service and time worked, is not a gratuity but is a form of compensation for services, and when the services are rendered, the right to secure the promised compensation is vested as much as the right to receive wages or other form of compensation. Brown, 519 N.W.2d at 477. Respondent’s 2001-2002 bonus was an intégral and negotiated part of his compensation package for 2001. Respondent contracted with appellant in 2001 to receive a bonus based on the satisfaction of four objective, company-performance based criteria and one subjective perso 1284-85 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); Knutson v. Snyder Indus., Inc., 231 Neb. 374,
holding that threequarter guarantee payments were not wages under arizona wage payment laws permitting treble damages for nonpayment under rationale that wages are restricted to compensation due an employee in return for work performed 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 holding that the computation of an incentive bonus based on work done was a wage reasoning that wages include not only periodic monetary earnings but also the other benefits to which he is entitled as part of his compensation holding under indiana law that profits are not wages and neither is a fraction of profits wages and so a bonus that is based on the performance of a plant rather than on the time or determinable output of the employee is not wages either holding that claimant was not required to show monetary loss to claimants corporations in order to receive wage loss benefits where claimant was unable to perform his duties and had to reassign other employees to complete his duties even though he had authority to draw wages from the corporation due to his ownership interest