© 2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2025 ed. | 181 vacation time three weeks after her termination. More than a year later, the plaintiff sued the defendant under the Wage Act for failing to pay out vacation time on the date of discharge. After a bench trial, the lower court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the late payment and that the interest should be trebled, but that she was not entitled to treble damages on the vacation pay itself. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed. It concluded that “late payments constitute clear violations of the statute” and the remedy of treble damages is “explicit.”1131 It thus held that the plaintiff was entitled to trebling of the vacation pay itself rather than interest on the late payment. Acknowledging that its decision put employers in a difficult position when terminating an employee on short notice for misconduct, the Court nonetheless explained that “[b]y imposing strict liability . . . the Legislature has decided that employers rather than employees should bear the cost of such delay or mistakes, honest or not.”1132 In order to avoid such mistakes, “employees who . . . have engaged in illegal or harmful conduct may have to be suspended rather than terminated for a short period of time until the employer can comply with” the Wage Act.1133 In George v. National Water Main Cleaning Company, the SJC held that statutory prejudgment interest pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, § 6H should be added to the amount of lost wages and other benefits awarded as damages to a prevailing plaintiff under the Wage Act.1134 However, interest should not be added to the additional amount of the damages award arising from trebling under the statute.1135 In addition to treble damages and interest, the prevailing party in a wage and hour suit may recover litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.1136 In the case of a settlement that does not resolve the question of attorneys’ fees, prevailing party status is determined under the catalyst test, which assesses whether the plaintiff’s lawsuit is a necessary and important factor in causing the defendant to grant a material portion of the requested relief.1137 As to the amount of fees, there has been significant litigation regarding what constitutes “reasonable” attorneys’ fees.1138 This determination is within the discretion of the trial judge, who may consider such factors as the attorneys’ hourly rates, the thoroughness of the attorneys’ documentation of hours worked, and whether the result justifies the costs.1139 1131 489 Mass. at 471. 1132 Id. 1133 Id. at 472. 1134 See George v. National Water Main Cleaning Co., 477 Mass. 371, 371 (2017). 1135 Id. 1136 Id.; see Wiedmann, 444 Mass. at 709 n.13. 1137 See Ferman v. Sturgis Cleaners, Inc., 481 Mass. 488 (2019). In Ferman, the settlement agreement and associated release expressly reserved the issue of whether plaintiffs’ counsel was entitled to an award of fees. 1138 M.G.L. ch. 149, § 150; see, e.g., Killeen v. Westban Hotel Venture, LP, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 784 (2007) (finding $153,717 award of attorneys’ fees unreasonable where relationship between the fees and the results achieved was disproportionate because plaintiff recovered only $1.26 in actual damages). 1139 Killeen, 69 Mass. App. Ct. at 784.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4