176 | Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2025 ed. © 2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Payment of owed wages before a complaint is filed is not a defense to a Wage Act claim.1087 Thus, if an employer mistakenly pays an employee’s final wages one day late, the employee could still sue for treble damages, less the wages already paid. Further, Massachusetts courts have held that an employer’s intent or good faith is not a defense to either liability or treble damages, as the statute imposes strict liability on employers.1088 While the FLSA permits an employer to avoid liquidated damages if it can establish that it made a good faith mistake,1089 treble damages under the Wage Act are automatic. Notwithstanding this landscape, there may be legal defenses in some circumstances. Courts have recognized that the Wage Act is not a model of clarity,1090 and there may be legal arguments regarding its applicability to the facts of a particular case. In addition, in a few narrow circumstances, courts have found that the Wage Act conflicts with some other state statutory scheme.1091 State law claims under the Wage Act may be preempted by federal law in some circumstances. To the extent that the Wage Act claim requires interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, it may be preempted by the Labor-Management Relations Act.1092 A Wage Act claim that seek to recover benefits under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) may be preempted. Section 514 of ERISA broadly preempts “any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate any employee benefit plan” covered by the statute.1093 In Massachusetts v. Morash, the Supreme Court held that a criminal complaint for non-payment of vacation pay under the Wage Act was not preempted by ERISA because the employer’s vacation policy was an ordinary payroll practice, not an ERISAgoverned plan.1094 The Court suggested that the result would be different if the payments at issue had been pursuant to a plan. Beyond legal defenses, employers should carefully consider whether certification of the matter as a class action is inappropriate or whether there are valid grounds to challenge the plaintiff’s attempt to assert claims other than on his or her own behalf. Likewise, employers should consider whether there are any steps they can take to preserve their rights in the litigation from the outset, including whether to avail themselves of Rule 68 of the Massachusetts or Federal Rules of Civil 1087 Reuter v. City of Methuen, 489 Mass. 465, 473-74 (2022). 1088 Dixon v. Malden, 464 Mass. 446, 452 (2013). 1089 29 U.S.C. § 260. 1090 See, e.g., Dobin, 2003 WL 22454602, at *3 (recognizing that the Wage Act is “hardly a model of legislative draftsmanship”). 1091 See, e.g., Malden Police Patrolman Ass’n v. City of Malden, 92 Mass.App.Ct. 53, 63-64 (2017) (explaining that Legislature gave municipalities longer period to pay for certain police details under municipal finance law than under the Wage Act); see also Monell v. Boston Pads, LLC, 471 Mass. 566, 577-78 (2015) (holding that the independent contractor statue did not apply to real estate salespersons). 1092 See Section XV. 1093 29 U.S.C. § 1444(a). 1094 490 U.S. 107 (1989)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4