Royal

State Law Remedies No Longer Available for FLSA Violations

May 27, 2022

Case in Point


By Alexander Cerbo, Esq.

 

As most employers are aware, non-payment of wages claims can be made under both state law, the Massachusetts Wage Act (“MWA”), and federal law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Although similar in many respects, the MWA and FLSA have several important differences.



First, under the FLSA, either a two-or three-year statute of limitations applies, depending on whether the claimant can demonstrate that the employer acted “willfully.” On the other hand, the MWA provides for a strict three-year statute of limitations. Also, the FLSA allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover costs, attorney’s fees, and potential liquidated damages (i.e. damages collected as a result of a breach of the contract) equal to the amount of lost wages.


Essentially, employees can recover “double damages” or double the amount of back pay damages for unpaid overtime. On the other hand, remedies under the MWA are even greater. Plaintiffs can recover attorney’s fees and costs, both of which are subject to treble, or triple, damages.

When deciding which law to bring a wage claim under, Massachusetts plaintiffs often file under the MWA because of the greater remedies available to them under the MWA. However, this is not always the case.


In a recent matter before the highest court in Massachusetts, several restaurant workers asserted unpaid overtime claims under the FLSA. But these plaintiffs cannot assert these claims under the MWA because restaurant workers, as well as other service-industry employees, as a matter of law, are not entitled to overtime wages. Nevertheless, they attempted to argue that violations of the FLSA entitled them to damages under the MWA. The SJC disagreed, holding that remedies afforded under the state MWA are to be preempted by the federal FLSA where employees’ claims for unpaid overtime wages arise exclusively under federal law.


While this decision is good news for employers, the remedies available under the FLSA remain considerable. To avoid these substantial damages, employers should ensure internal procedures are in place, and consistently followed, so as to guarantee all employees are paid wages owed to them.

 

This article was published in the most recent edition of BusinessWest.


Alexander Cerbo is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.

ALERT: EEOC Releases Workplace Guidance to Prevent Harassment

01 May, 2024
On April 29 th , 2024, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized their guidance in harassment in the workplace after receiving and responding to nearly 38,000 public comments on the proposed guidance released on October 2, 2023. The renewed guidance provides numerous clarifying hypotheticals, and addresses more recent issues including protections for LGBTIQA+ employees and remote work. Of note, the EEOC clarified the scope of sex discrimination and harassment, stating that federal protections under Title VII extend to LGBTIQA+ employees. Specifically, the EEOC made clear that the scope of harassment extends to repeatedly and intentionally misgendering employees or denying access to bathroom facilities that align with their gender identity. Further, this guidance reminds employers that discrimination and harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions, which include employees’ decisions related to contraception and abortion. Several public comments suggested that these guidelines infringed on free speech and religious rights. The EEOC did not directly address these concerns, instead stating that free speech and religious rights issues are fact-specific and would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Further, the EEOC updated guidance related to the remote work environment. The EEOC clarified that conduct in a virtual work environment, including electronic communications using private phones, computers, or social media accounts can contribute to a hostile work environment if they impact the workplace. The EEOC also clarified that conduct occurring outside of the workplace, including on social media, which does not target the employer or its employees and is not brought into the workplace generally will not contribute to a hostile work environment. Finally, the EEOC updated its Anti-Harassment Policy Requirements, stating that an anti-harassment and discrimination policy should be widely disseminated to employees, in a manner that is understandable by all employees and includes i) a definition of prohibited conduct, ii) a requirement that supervisors report harassment, iii) multiple avenues for reporting harassment, iv) a statement that clearly identifies accessible points of contact for reporting purposes, and v) an explanation of the complaint process, including adequate anti-retaliation and confidentiality protections, and prompt and effective investigation and corrective action. You can read more about the EEOC's ruling on their website by clicking here . If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Non-Compete Agreements Are in Jeopardy

26 Apr, 2024
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule banning non-competition agreements for all employees except for very narrow exceptions. The FTC’s Final Rule banning all non-competition agreements is effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which is expected in the next few days.  As of the effective date, all non-competition agreements are banned, except for franchisor/franchisee relationships and for sales of a business between buyer and seller. The FTC’s Rule is retroactive, prohibiting certain non-competition agreements before the effective date of the Rule as well. Existing non-competition agreements can remain in effect as to senior executives, which are defined in the Rule as employees in “policy-making positions” making at least $151,164 annually. The FTC’s Final Rule is already being challenged through the court system and a challenge from the Chamber of Commerce will most likely follow suit. Therefore, if an employer has existing non-competition agreements, the employer may not need to rescind them just yet. Stay tuned for updates as these challenges take their due course.
Share by: