Search results for “Wage Act”


Let’s be clear: the Massachusetts Wage Act is draconian. If you violate it, you are on the hook for triple damages and attorneys’ fees. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has confirmed that there are no good faith exceptions to the statute’s penalty provisions – no matter how benign or innocent the reason an employer failed to comply.

While a lot of out-of-state employers know this, and try to limit the risks associated with the Wage Act by including a choice of law provision calling for the application of their home state’s law to their employment agreements, as Evolve Cellular recently learned, simply including a standard, broad choice of law provision is not enough….

In 2016 Evolve Cellular hired Alan Berrey as an employee, and the parties entered into an Employment Agreement with the following choice of law provision:

This Agreement, and any contest, dispute, controversy or claim arising hereunder or related hereto … shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Texas applicable to agreements made and to be performed in that state, without reference to its principles of conflicts of law that would apply the laws of another jurisdiction.

In … Keep reading


Often, when settling a dispute, I include a general release that goes something like this:

Releasors hereby forever release and discharge Releasees from, and/or based on, any and all suits, etc. which Releasors ever had, now have or may in the future claim to have against Releasees, arising out of any acts or conduct that occurred from the beginning of time to the date of this Agreement.

Plainly, such a release is intended to “wipe the slate clean” and give the parties the comfort of knowing that neither can be sued by the other for any conduct that occurred up to that point in time – whether the other party knows about the conduct/claim or not.  As a recent case from the Superior Court, Fratea v. Unitrends, Inc., reminds us, however, a general release of this sort will not bar a former employee from pursuing a claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act.

When Michael Fratea left the employment of Unitrends, he executed a release in exchange for the payment of $1,875. Thereafter, Fratea filed suit against the company and two individuals, alleging a violation of the Wage Act because he was not paid overtime compensation. The defendants … Keep reading


As I have written before, the Massachusetts Weekly Payment of Wages Act obligates employers to pay all earned wages to employees in a timely fashion. The Wage Act also specifies that the “president and treasurer of a corporation and any officers or agents having the management of such corporation” are personally liable for violations. In Segal v. Genitrix, LLC, et al., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, interpreting the phrase “agent having the management of the corporation” for the first time since it was added to the Wage Act in 1935, ruled that, as long as board members and investors acted in their ordinary capacities, they were not such agents and could not personally be liable for violations.

In Segal, the former president and chief executive officer of Genitrix, asserted that two former board members of the company, H. Fisk Johnson III and Stephen Rose, should be individually liable for wages that Segal claimed he was owed for services he performed for the company. Neither Johnson nor Rose was the president, treasurer, or any other officer of Genitrix. The Appeals Court, relying on Cook v. Patient Edu, ruled that Segal might have viable claims against Johnson and … Keep reading


Under the Massachusetts Weekly Payment of Wages Act (“Wage Act”), the President, Treasurer and “any officers or agents having the management of such corporation” are considered to be employers and are subject to individual liability for failing to comply with its requirement. In a previous blog post, Managers of LLCs Can Be Personally Liable Under the Massachusetts Wage Act, I had written about Cook v. Patient Edu, LLC, where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified that managers of limited liability companies (not just the officers of a corporation) could be held individually liable under the Wage Act.  In Cook, the SJC concluded that it did not matter whether the entity was a limited liability company or corporation, and determined that “individuals with the authority to shape the employment and financial policies of an entity [were] liable for the obligations of that entity to its employees.”

In a recent unpublished decision, Segal v. Genitrix, LLC, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, relying on Cook, appears to have expanded the scope of individual liability under the Wage Act to certain equity holders of limited liability companies.

… Keep reading

TAGS: ,


As I have previously warned in prior blog posts here and here, the Massachusetts Wage Act exposes a company and individuals having management responsibility for the company to mandatory treble damages and attorneys’ fees for failing to pay wages.  Because the statute, however, does not define the term “wages,” employees have attempted to apply the Wage Act’s beneficial damages provision to any type of compensation.  A true “bonus” need not be wages and the failure to pay a bonus would then not subject an employer or its management to the risk of treble damages or attorneys’ fees.  Nevertheless, it is not always easy to determine if a particular payment is a bonus or wages.

A recent Massachusetts case, Boesel v. Swaptree, Inc., helped clarify the distinction between wages and a bonus.  Specifically, Boesel discussed three provisions in an employment agreement that can be used to clarify how the payment to an employee should be characterized:

  • Describe a bonus in a provision that is separate from the provision describing base salary.  In Boesel, the plaintiff argued that the discretionary bonus in his employment agreement was earned ratably over the course of the year and was part of
… Keep reading
TAGS: , ,


In a June 13, 2013 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified that managers of Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) can be individually liable for violations of the Massachusetts Weekly Payment of Wages Act, and, thus, be personally responsible for treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

In Cook v. Patient Edu, LLC, the lower court had originally dismissed claims asserted against the two managers of the defendant LLC for failure to pay more than $68,000 in compensation owed to the plaintiff under an employment contract.  In dismissing the claims, the lower court reasoned that because the Wage Act, by its plain language, only imposes liability upon the “president and treasurer of a corporation and any officer or agent having the management of the corporation or entity;” it does not impose liability on “managers of a limited liability company.”  The SJC, taking the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion, reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that “… a manager or other officer or agent of an LLC, limited liability partnership or other limited liability business entity may be a ‘person having employees in his service,’” and thus may be civilly or criminally liable for violations of the … Keep reading

TAGS: , , , ,


A favorite saying of my mentor and colleague in the Labor and Employment Group here at Burns & Levinson is “no good deed goes unpunished.”  Over my years of practice, I have found that this phrase oft comes to mind when an employer just wants to “do the right thing” or wants to be generous to an employee by giving the employee money, or time off, to which the employee is not entitled.  The phrase may be one that is recently being muttered around Malden City Hall, in light of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) recent decision in Dixon v. City of Malden.  … Keep reading

TAGS: , ,


As I mentioned in some of my prior posts, the Massachusetts Weekly Payment of Wages Act (“Wage Act”) poses many challenges to employers due, in part, to the vagueness of its terms, the strict liability it imposes on employers (and individuals having management of the company), and the threat of treble damages and attorneys’ fees.  One thing is clear, however: commissions are considered “wages” under the Wage Act if they are “definitely determinable” and have become “due and payable.”  While many in-house counsel and employers are aware of this, they mistakenly assume that their company can avoid violating the Wage Act if the company’s commission plan states that commissions are payable: (a) only if the employee is employed at the time the employer decides to pay them, or (b) only at the employer’s discretion.  As Prudential Insurance Company of America recently found out, however, simply including such a clause may not provide enough protection if the plan does not clearly address when commissions are “definitely determinable” and when they are “due and payable.”

Prudential had an elaborate nine-page document outlining its Regional Coordinators’ Sales Compensation Plan.  One of its long-time employees, Christopher McAleer, claimed that he was terminated … Keep reading

TAGS: , ,


Before last week, a non-Massachusetts employer could insulate itself from employee claims under the Massachusetts Weekly Payment of Wages Act (“Wage Act”) simply by having its employees agree that all employment disputes be litigated in the employer’s home state.  That all changed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Melia v. Zenhire, Inc.   

In that case, plaintiff Edward Melia, who worked and lived in Massachusetts, challenged the validity of a forum selection clause contained in his employment agreement requiring that any disputes related to his employment  be litigated in New York.  Melia’s claims against Zenhire included claims for unpaid wages, unpaid vacation and sick day wages, severance pay and unreimbursed expenses.  Melia argued that the forum selection clause was a “special contract” prohibited by the Wage Act and against Massachusetts public policy.  The SJC disagreed, determining that, due to comity amongst state courts, and in light of most states’ choice of law rules, there is a presumption that other jurisdictions would apply laws such as the Wage Act.  As such, there was no public policy reason to invalidate a forum selection clause in an employment agreement. 

The SJC did leave one opening for employees in this regard, in … Keep reading

TAGS: , , , ,


Under the Massachusetts Wage Act, M.G.L. c. 149 § 150, a terminated employee is entitled to be paid all wages, including accrued vacation time, on the day of termination, and the failure to do so makes the employer liable for mandatory treble damages and attorneys’ fees. As the Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled in Reuter v. City of Methuen, while this rule may seem harsh and offers no “good faith exception,” that is what the legislature intended. Indeed, Reuter is a cautionary tale from which in-house counsel should take note.

After having worked for the City of Methuen for 25 years, Beth Reuter was convicted of larceny, prompting the City to terminate her employment. At the time of her termination, Reuter was owed $8,952.15 for accrued vacation time, which the City did not pay until three weeks later. Eventually, Reuter’s counsel noted that the City’s conduct violated the Wage Act and demanded triple the accrued vacation pay and attorneys’ fees (less the $8,952.15 already paid). Reuter filed suit, and the City took the position that because it paid the accrued vacation amount before any demand had been made and prior to the lawsuit being filed, the most for … Keep reading