United States: The Rising Stakes In Massachusetts Wage Litigation

Last Updated: November 2 2013
Article by Karen A. Whitley

The steady stream of wage and hour litigation in Massachusetts state and federal courts continues unabated. As employees and employers present a variety of claims and defenses, the courts respond with one clear message: employee wages will receive broad protection. The recent decisions not only emphasize the expansive reach of the Massachusetts Wage Act ("MWA") but also contain additional developments that will raise the stakes. Recently, courts have reexamined statutory provisions that had been interpreted reliably in favor of employers. Despite unambiguous statutes of limitation, courts have allowed plaintiffs to reach back more than three years to recover unpaid wages. And, in one case, plaintiffs combined state and federal causes of action to sidestep a seemingly valid employer defense. Employers beware: these decisions may lead to additional recordkeeping and discovery burdens, increased damage exposure, and decreased settlement leverage.  

Lowering the "Administrative Exhaustion" Hurdle   

The MWA describes the process for a worker to bring a claim for unpaid wages. G.L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150. The statute provides that the worker must file a complaint with the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General ("AG"). Specifically, section 150 states that an employee:

may, 90 days after the filing of a complaint with the attorney general, or sooner if the attorney general assents in writing ... institute and prosecute ... a civil action....

Previously, courts had interpreted this language literally, to mean that an employee must exhaust all administrative remedies by first filing a complaint with the AG and then bringing a private lawsuit ("the AG filing provision"). For example, in Joyce v. The Upper Crust, LLC, 2012 WL 3028459, at *6 (D. Mass. 2012) and Norceide v. Cambridge Health Alliance, 814 F. Supp. 2d 17, 27 (D. Mass. 2011), the courts dismissed the plaintiffs' MWA claims because they had not fulfilled the "condition" of reporting alleged wage violations to the AG. See Swanson v. Lord & Taylor, LLC, 278 F.R.D. 36, 40 (D. Mass. 2011) ("The exhaustion requirement is mandatory, and operates as a bar to suit if it is not fulfilled.") 

Recently, Massachusetts courts have adopted a more lenient, and even directly contradictory, position. In Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., the Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") held that the lower court had jurisdiction over a wage claim, even though the plaintiff had not filed a complaint with the AG prior to filing suit. 465 Mass. 607, 611 (2013). The SJC acknowledged that the MWA "requires" a worker to file a complaint with the AG but characterized that "requirement" as "intended simply to ensure that the Attorney General receives notice of the alleged violations, so that she may investigate and prosecute such violations at her discretion." Id. at 612. The court distinguished the AG filing provision from a similar provision under the anti-discrimination law, G.L. c. 151B. The court explained that c. 151B's "comprehensive remedial process" includes a prompt investigation by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, preliminary evaluation of probable cause, and a conciliation program, all designed to resolve individual claims of discrimination. Allowing a claimant to proceed directly to a judicial forum would thwart that purpose. Id. at 612–613. According to the court in Depianti, the process under the MWA has a different purpose, and the AG filing provision is not jurisdictional. Therefore, the plaintiff could notify the AG during the litigation. Id. at 610 n.8, 613-614. The decision is a reminder that courts interpret the remedial laws governing wages, tips, independent contractor status, and overtime liberally, "with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them." Id. at 620.  

Similarly, in Schwann v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2013 WL 3353776 (D. Mass. 2013), former delivery drivers who worked as independent contractors filed suit for wages. FedEx objected because not all plaintiffs had complied with the AG filing provision. Citing Depianti, the court held that the "administrative notice" requirement was satisfied because the AG had previously issued citations to FedEx and was aware of the matter. Id. at * 6–7. Moreover, because one plaintiff had been authorized to file suit on behalf of similarly situated workers, other plaintiffs did not need to obtain individualized permission to sue. Id.  

An employer's ability under prior case law to insist on strict compliance with the AG filing provision might not have materially affected its overall liability—but might have created an opportunity to assert a statute of limitations defense to some claims when the complaint was refiled. The recent decisions reflect an unwillingness by the courts to impose technical barriers to recovery for unpaid wages. 

Reaching Beyond the Statute of Limitations   

The Massachusetts Overtime Law, G.L. c. 151, §1A, requires an employer to pay compensation at time and one-half the regular rate ("premium rate") for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. An aggrieved employee must file a claim within two years. Id. § 20A. The SJC recently allowed recovery for a longer period of time, viewing plaintiffs' claims through the lens of the MWA instead of the Overtime Law. Crocker v. Townsend Oil Co., Inc., 464 Mass. 1, 6-8 (2012). 

In Crocker, the plaintiffs worked as truckdrivers. More than two years after their independent contractor agreements ended, plaintiffs sued for unpaid overtime compensation under the MWA, which has a three-year statute of limitations. The defendant argued that any claim for unpaid overtime has a two-year statute of limitations, even if filed under the MWA. The court agreed that the two-year statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' claims for compensation at the premium rate. However, the SJC allowed recovery for up to one additional year, at a straight-time rate, under the MWA. Id. at 7. The court in Crocker provided some comfort when it held that plaintiffs could not rely on the continuing violation theory to assert statutory violations older than three years. Id. at 8-12. However, as discussed below, employers might have exposure beyond even the three-year period recognized in Crocker.  

Recovery Under Common Law Claims 

Plaintiffs often include in a wage complaint claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, conversion, or similar claims. In many cases, the common law claims cover the same time period and are based on the same facts underlying the alleged statutory violation. See, e.g., Schwann, 2013 WL 3353776, at *6 (unjust enrichment claim dismissed as duplicative); see Feygina v. Hallmark Health Sys., Inc., 2013 WL 3776929, at *8 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2013) (plaintiff "cannot recover twice for the same consequential damages, merely because she has asserted separate claims for breach of contract and violation of the [MWA].") In effect, the MWA has been the primary means to recover unpaid compensation.  

In Lipsitt v. Plaud, however, the court directly addressed the issue of whether the MWA is the exclusive remedy to recover unpaid wages. 466 Mass. 240 (2013). The decision could have significant consequences.  

In Lipsitt, a museum director sued for unpaid compensation that was more than three years overdue. The plaintiff dismissed his time-barred MWA claims but pursued breach of contract and other common law claims, reaching back six years. Id. at 243-244. The defendant argued that the MWA, as the exclusive remedy, preempted the common law claims. The lower court agreed. However, the SJC concluded that adoption of legislation does not, by itself, preempt common law, and that the legislature had not expressly or impliedly established the MWA as the exclusive remedy. Id. at 247. The court acknowledged that plaintiffs may prefer to bring claims under the MWA, with its enhanced penalties and fees, despite the shorter statute of limitations. However, "[i]t does not upset this balance to continue to subject employers to normal contract liability for the full six-year statute of limitations period applicable to contracts generally." Id. at 250-251.  

In a different case where relief under the MWA was unavailable for other reasons, a federal court similarly allowed plaintiffs to pursue common law claims. In Manning v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., the plaintiff's statutory claims were dismissed because the hospital was exempt from the MWA. 725 F.3d 34, 55 (1st Cir. 2013). Defendants argued that the MWA preempted contract claims based on the same facts. The court disagreed, holding that the MWA did not displace common law claims either explicitly or implicitly. Id. at 56-57.  

The decisions in Lipsitt and Manning portend further expansion of employer liability, inviting employees to reach back an additional three years under a variety of circumstances. First, as in Lipsitt¸ a plaintiff who did not earn wages in the prior three years may be able to recover unpaid wages from four, five, and six years earlier. Second, as in Manning, a plaintiff who cannot assert a statutory claim for whatever reason might still bring common law claims reaching back six years. Third, plaintiffs might combine claims under both the MWA, for three years of unpaid compensation plus attorneys' fees and liquidated damages, and then for another three years of unpaid wages, at straight time, based on common law. It is unclear that the strategy would succeed because the holding in Lipsitt applied "[p]articularly where an employee's Wage Act claims are time barred" and because such a maneuver would upset the "balance" that allows enhanced penalties under the MWA in exchange for a shorter statute of limitations.  

Nevertheless, employers should review their recordkeeping practices, as it appears increasingly prudent to retain wage records for longer than statutorily required. G.L. c. 149, § 52C (retention for three years after termination); G.L. c. 151, §15 (retention for two years after creation of a record). The opportunity to reach back six years also affects the discovery process, encompassing documents that are more likely to be missing, archived, or incomplete. The scope of discovery could expand because contract defenses that are not available under the MWA may now be relevant. Moreover, the pool of potential defendants could also grow. For example, employers who changed pay practices more than three years ago might now be subject to suit for long-abandoned policies. The increased scope of potential damages could affect an employer's settlement leverage.  

Recovery Under Selective State and Federal Laws 

Finally, employers should be aware of a decision in which a plaintiff sidestepped state overtime exemption provisions to recover the maximum liquidated damages under state law. Carroca v. All Star Enters. & Collision Ctr., Inc., 2013 WL 3496537 (D. Mass. 2013).  

The Carroca case involved an employee who worked as an auto body repairman. The court concluded that he was not exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and was entitled to overtime compensation, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages. However, the plaintiff claimed that the failure to pay overtime under federal law was, itself, a violation of the MWA's obligation to pay wages in a timely manner and sought treble damages. Because the plaintiff was not asserting a violation of the Overtime Law, the defendant's reliance on a state law overtime exemption was irrelevant. Id. at *3. As a result, the MWA's treble damages provision applied. Id. at *4. A more aggressive defense might have prevented this result, particularly because the cases cited by the court to justify the award of treble damages involved situations where both state and federal overtime laws applied. In Carroca, a state exemption might have barred recovery under state law. The case presents a cautionary example of a plaintiff maximizing recovery by cherry-picking state and federal laws.


The number of wage actions filed in the Massachusetts courts continues to grow, due in part to publicity about sizeable damage awards, including mandatory treble damages. Recent case law may provide further incentive for plaintiffs as the courts continue to clarify the breadth of the MWA's coverage, relax administrative requirements, and permit alternative common law claims. The practical impact on employers, particularly with regard to recordkeeping, discovery burdens, and settlement leverage, could be significant. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions