Wage and Hour Defense Blog

Psychologist Abraham Maslow once observed, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.”[1] That sums up the state of commission litigation under the Massachusetts Wage Act: mandatory treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and the prospect that a court might strike a term of an agreed-upon commission plan as an unenforceable “special contract” that deprives an employee of earned wages has led to an uptick in the number of commission claims. Given these potential consequences, employees sometimes try to fit a square peg into a ...

As we reported earlier this week, on February 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, finding that a daily-rate worker who earned over $200,000 annually was not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA or Act) overtime requirements. The Court reasoned that, although the employee’s compensation exceeded the amount required under 29 C.F.R. § 541.601’s highly compensated employee (HCE) exemption, and he customarily and regularly performed at least one exempt duty (there, the “executive” duty of supervising a crew of workers), his employer did not pay him on a “salary basis” because he did not “receive a fixed amount for a week no matter how many days he … worked.”

Practically, Helix’s holding is unlikely to have broad consequences. Most employers pay employees who earn enough to qualify as an HCE (currently, $107,432 annually) and perform at least one exempt administrative, executive, or professional duty a predetermined salary. But employers who have classified non-salaried high earners as exempt HCEs will acutely feel its effects.

On June 28, 2022, Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee signed into law a comprehensive tip protection bill. The law, which took effect immediately upon passage, generally prohibits employers from retaining any portion of an employee’s tips.

Over the past few years, lower courts in Massachusetts have grappled with determining whether the “ABC test” under the independent-contractor statute provides the proper framework for assessing joint-employment liability. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has finally answered that question.  On December 13, 2021, in Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, the SJC held that the independent-contractor statute’s “ABC test” does not apply and instead adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) “totality of the circumstances” approach to joint employment.

Credico was a client broker for independent direct marketing companies. It contracted with DFW Consultants, Inc. (DFW) to provide sales and marketing services for its clients in Massachusetts. To provide those services, DFW hired three of the plaintiffs – Kyana Jinks, Antwione Taylor, and Lee Tremblay – as salespeople. DFW classified Jinks and Taylor as independent contractors and Tremblay as an employee.

On September 1, 2021, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey approved two versions of a ballot initiative (version 1, version 2) concerning the relationship between app-based drivers (such as those who transport passengers or deliver food) and the companies with which they contract. If passed, the ballot initiative will enact the Relationship Between Network Companies and App-Based Drivers Act (the “Act”) and classify such drivers as independent contractors, not employees. It will also require ride-sharing and food-delivery companies to provide them with certain benefits.