Highlights
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a welcome ruling for nonprofit institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations that comprise a healthcare delivery system.
- In Curtin-Wilding v. Trustees of Boston University, the court applied statutory immunity excusing those nonprofit employers from certain violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act based on noncompliant monthly payment of wages.
- The strict dictates of the Wage Act and its automatic treble damages call for all Massachusetts employers – and not just nonprofit higher education and healthcare employers – to review their payroll practices to ensure compliance with Massachusetts' wage-payment requirements.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a welcome ruling for nonprofit institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations that comprise a healthcare delivery system. In Curtin-Wilding v. Trustees of Boston University,1 the court applied statutory immunity excusing those nonprofit employers from certain violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act2 based on noncompliant monthly payment of wages.
Massachusetts Wage Act, Pivotal Case Law and Recent Legislative Activity
The Massachusetts Wage Act requires that most employees be paid weekly or biweekly and permits exempt employees to be paid semimonthly or, at the employee's affirmative election, to be paid monthly.3 Further, the Wage Act requires that wages be paid within six or seven days of the end of the pay period in which they are earned.
Historically, case law had provided some protection to employers who made late payment but made payment in full before the filing of any lawsuit challenging the late payment.4 That changed in 2022, with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's pivotal decision in the case of Reuter v. City of Methuen.5 In that case, the court held that Massachusetts employers were strictly liable for treble (triple) damages and attorneys' fees on any late-paid wages under the Wage Act, even if the wages were paid before the filing of any complaint and even if the employer acted in good faith. The Reuter decision resulted in Massachusetts employers facing a wave of complaints and class actions alleging untimely payment of wages.
This resulting litigation – which often targeted situations where the wages were paid in accordance with an employer's established monthly payroll schedule, but the employee had not provided an affirmative election to be paid monthly – drew the attention of the Massachusetts legislature. Focusing on the significantly large number of people employed by nonprofit higher education institutions and healthcare delivery systems in Massachusetts and what was viewed as potentially unintended consequences of the Reuter decision, the legislature took corrective action on July 4, 2025, by adding protections to those employers in the budget bill at 2025 Mass. Acts c. 9, Section 113 (Section 113). Section 113 provides limited immunity to nonprofit higher education institutions and nonprofit organizations that comprise a healthcare delivery system from Wage Act claims based on payment of wages to employees on an established and otherwise compliant monthly pay schedule. This Section 113 protection applies to lawsuits filed between July 1, 2024, and Sept. 30, 2028.
Federal District Court's Confirmation of Section 113 Immunity
In Curtin-Wilding, a Massachusetts university faced alleged violations of the Wage Act based on payment of wages to salaried lecturers on a monthly basis without their affirmative consent.6 The complaint was filed on Feb. 21, 2025. After the passage of Section 113 in July 2025, the university moved for dismissal and judgment in its favor on the pleadings, arguing statutory immunity under Section 113.
The district court ruled in favor of the university, holding that Section 113 immunized the university from the Wage Act claim based on payment of wages on a monthly basis. In discussing the scope of the Section 113 immunity, the court noted that Section 113 "only affects those suits in which a technical violation of the Wage Act occurred" and does not provide immunity if the employees' wages were not paid in full within six days of the termination of a pay period occurring 1) on a monthly basis or 2) pursuant to a written policy schedule or agreement presented to an employee.7
This case involved an exempt employee, but the case and language of Section 113 do not distinguish between exempt and nonexempt employees in applying the protection excusing monthly payment. The court further held that Section 113 applied retroactively to cases filed before the enactment of Section 113 but within the stated protected period of July 1, 2024, to Sept. 30, 2028. The court dispensed of the argument that the immunity provision violated Massachusetts constitutional law and declined to certify related questions to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Takeaways for Employers Relying on Section 113
Section 113 immunity provides a temporary reprieve to nonprofit higher education and healthcare employers from costly Wage Act class actions related to monthly payment of wages filed between July 1, 2024, and Sept. 30, 2028, where timing of payment otherwise complies with the parameters of Section 113.
Notwithstanding the clear benefits of the legislative focus and Section 113 temporary immunity, nonprofit higher education and healthcare employers should remain diligent in reviewing their payroll practices for compliance and not wait until Sept. 30, 2028, to do so. Importantly, the time period for Section 113 immunity relates to the date of filing of the lawsuit (and not the employee's pay periods at issue). Accordingly, employers relying on Section 113 temporary immunity should think about the Sept. 30, 2028, expiration of the protections in relation to the typical three-year statute of limitations on Wage Act claims.8 Employers should proceed now to make any necessary payroll changes for compliance with the Wage Act in the event that there is no extension or reformulation of Section 113 protections.
The strict dictates of the Wage Act and its automatic treble damages call for all Massachusetts employers – and not just nonprofit higher education and healthcare employers – to review their payroll practices to ensure compliance with Massachusetts' wage-payment requirements.
For more information on this topic, please contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's Labor and Employment Group.
Footnotes
1. Civ. A. No. 25-10432-RGS, 2025 WL 2469312 (D. Mass. Aug. 27, 2025).
2. M.G.L. c. 149, Section 148, et seq.
3. M.G.L. c. 149, Section 148.
4. See, e.g., Clermont v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 3d 353, 357-359 (D. Mass. 2015); Dobin vs. CIOview Corp., Mass. Sup. Ct., No. 2001-00108 (Oct. 29, 2003).
5. Reuter v. City of Methuen, 489 Mass. 465 (2022).
6. Curtin-Wilding, 2025 WL 2469312 at *1.
7. Id. at *4.
8. M.G.L. c. 149, Section 150.
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.
