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.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. 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.