Employees must be paid either weekly or biweekly. Executive, administrative and professional employees may be paid monthly at their own option.
Wages must be paid within six days of the termination of the pay period, or within seven days if the employee has a seven-day workweek.
Employees who are terminated must be paid their wages on the day of discharge. Employees who resign must be paid on the next payday.
The term "wages" includes hourly wages, salary, commissions, holiday pay and vacation pay that is due.
If an employer does not pay wages until after the deadlines provided in the Wage Act but before the employee files a complaint, the employer is still liable for treble the amount of the late wages plus attorney's fees and costs. Reuter v. City of Methuen, 489 Mass. 465 (2022)
This statute does not apply to an employee of a hospital which is supported in part by contributions from the Commonwealth or from any city or town, or to an employee of a hospital which provides treatment to patients free of charge, or which is conducted as a public charity, unless such employee requests the hospital to pay him weekly.
This statute also does not apply to an employee of a co-operative association if he is a shareholder therein, unless he requests such association to pay him weekly, or to casual employees employed by the Commonwealth or by any county, city or town.
Under this Wage Act: "No person shall by a special contract with an employee or by any other means exempt himself from" this Statute. Under M.G.L.c. 149, s. 150, an employer's defenses are limited: "On the trial no defense for failure to pay as required, other than the attachment of such wages by trustee process or a valid assignment thereof or a valid set-off against the same, or the absence of the employee from his regular place of labor at the time of payment, or an actual tender to such employee at the time of payment of the wages so earned by him, shall be valid." In Camara v. Attorney General, 458 Mass. 756 (2011), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that such "valid setoffs" involve some form of due process through the court system or occur at an employee's direction and in the employee's interest. Employee deduction agreements obtained through threat of discipline constitute prohibited special contracts unless the deductions are valid setoffs for clear and established debts.
In Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Attorney General, 454 Mass. 63 (2009), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court approved of the Attorney General's Advisory 99/1, which provided, inter alia, that an employer may require employees to use all of their accumulated vacation time by a certain period of time or lose all or part of it, provided the employer also gives adequate notice of the policy to employees and ensures that the employees have a reasonable opportunity to use the accumulated vacation time within the time limits established by the employer. The SJC also held that the Wage Act's "special contracts" clause recognizes that the Wage Act would have little value if employers could exempt themselves simply by drafting contracts that placed compensation outside its bounds. Id. at 79.
Employees who have not been paid their "wages" can file an online complaint for "Non-Payment of Wage" with the Massachusetts Attorney General pursuant to M.G.L.c. 149, s. 150 and receive from the Attorney General a "private right of action" letter, allowing an employee so aggrieved who prevails in court to be awarded treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and the cost of litigation.
For purposes of the enforcement of this statute, the president and treasurer of a corporation and any officers or agents having the management of the corporation are deemed to be the "employer" of the employees of the corporation.
In George v. National Water Main Cleaning Company, 477 Mass. 371 (2017), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that statutory prejudgment interest shall be added by the clerk of the court to the amount of lost wages and other benefits awarded as damages pursuant to M.G.L.c. 149, s. 150, but shall not be added to the additional amount of the award arising from the trebling of those damages as liquidated damages.
In Calixto v. Coughlin, 481 Mass. 157 (2018), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that earned wages, within the meaning of the Wage Act, are limited to payments for work that has actually been performed and that are presently due to be paid by the employer. The Wage Act does not apply to backpay awards.
In Ferman v. Sturgis Cleaners, Inc., 481 Mass. 488 (2019), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial concluded that a plaintiff prevails for purposes of an award of attorney's fees under the Wage Act when the plaintiff's suit satisfies the catalyst test by acting as a necessary and important factor in causing the defendant to provide a material portion of the relief demanded in the plaintiff's complaint; thus, where, in a civil action alleging failure to pay regular and overtime wages, the plaintiff's lawsuit caused the defendants, as part of a settlement agreement and stipulation of dismissal, to provide approximately seventy percent of the plaintiff's monetary demands (clearly a material portion), the plaintiff prevailed for purposes of an award of attorney's fees.
In the case of Rose v. RTN Federal Credit Union, 1 F.4th 56 (1st Cir. 2021), the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Labor Management Relations Act preempted the plaintiff's wage claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act because she was a member of a union and because her employer had an existing collective bargaining agreement with the union that governed her wages and overtime pay.
In Devaney v. Zucchini Gold, LLC, 489 Mass. 514 (2022), the Supreme Judicial Court held that when an employer violates the Federal overtime law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. s. 207, an employee is precluded from alternately pursuing remedies under the Massachusetts Weekly Payment of Wages Act, M.G.L.c. 149, s. 148, for the untimely payment of overtime wages if they are due solely pursuant to the FLSA.
An employer cannot penalize an employee for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this chapter. (M.G.L.c. 149, s. 148A)