If you are an executive evaluating your severance package, give us a call.

1st Circuit Reopens Door to $11M Severance Package for Gordon Law Group Client

In a landmark decision, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has reopened the door to an $11 million severance package for a former employee of a prominent company. This ruling, which overturned a lower court’s decision, has significant implications for both employers and employees, particularly in the realm of severance agreements and the enforceability of contractual terms. The Gordon Law Group is proud to represent the client in this case, which could set an important precedent for future employment-related disputes.

What the 1st Circuit Ruling Means for Severance Agreements

The case centers around a dispute over the terms of a severance package, where the lower court initially ruled against the former employee’s claim for the full amount stipulated in their contract. However, the 1st Circuit Court found in favor of the employee, reopening the door to the $11 million severance package that had initially been denied. In their ruling, the appellate court emphasized the importance of honoring severance agreements and the potential consequences employers may face if they attempt to circumvent these contractual obligations.

For employers, this case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of clear and enforceable severance agreements. Gordon, quoted in the case coverage, noted that this ruling underscores how courts are increasingly willing to protect employees’ rights when it comes to severance and termination packages.

For those following the minimum wage increases in Massachusetts, this is no surprise as the increases are part of the planned move to $15.00 by January 1, 2023.

If you are an employee making less than wage, give us a call.  We’d be happy to discuss the situation with you.

Minimum Wage Increase to $13.50 on January 1, 2021: What Employers and Employees Need to Know

Starting January 1, 2021, the minimum wage in Massachusetts is set to increase to $13.50 per hour, marking a significant change for businesses across the state. This wage increase is part of a multi-year plan that aims to gradually raise the state’s wage to $15 per hour by 2023. For both employers and employees, understanding the impact of this increase is crucial to ensuring compliance and avoiding potential legal issues.

What Does the Minimum Wage Increase Mean for Employers?

The wage increase to $13.50 per hour affects most businesses that employ hourly workers in Massachusetts. Employers will need to adjust their payroll systems and compensation practices to ensure that they are paying their employees in accordance with the new law. Failure to comply with the new wage requirements can result in penalties and fines from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office.

Employers should also be aware of other related changes, including adjustments to overtime pay. In Massachusetts, employees who work more than 40 hours per week must be paid at least 1.5 times the regular minimum wage rate. With the increase in the base rate, the overtime rate will also rise, which may affect businesses that rely heavily on overtime.

The Wage Act is applicable to commissions ‘when the amount of such commissions, less allowable or authorized deductions, has been definitely determined and has become due and payable to such employee.’   In order to be ‘definitely determined,’ a commission must be ‘arithmetically determinable.  In order to be ‘due and payable,’ any contingencies relating to the entitlement to the commission must have occurred.’  Importantly, the Wage Act also, prohibits employers from entering into a ‘special contract’ with an employee to exempt the employee from the protections of the act.

While many lower courts have been asked to determine whether these commission agreements that condition payment of commissions on continued employment violate the special contract provision of the Wage Act, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has recently issued some guidance to employers. Terminated employees may.

On February 12, 2020, the SJC issued a ruling in Parker v. EnerNOC, Inc., 484 Mass. 128 (2020).  In this case the court was asked to determine whether the Defendant’s “true-up” commission policy, whereby the salesperson would receive an additional commission once the contract survived past the opt-out date only if he/she was still employed with the company, was legal.  The SJC ruled that “although the plaintiff’s commission never became due and payable pursuant to the true-up policy during her employment, it is, nevertheless a ‘lost wage’ under the act subject to trebling.”  The court made this ruling because, “[a] policy that conditions payment on continued employment cannot relieve an employer from the obligation of paying a commission where the employer terminates its employee in retaliation for complaining about wage violations in the first place.”

If your commission plan is conditioned on continued employment and you have been terminated or are contemplating changing jobs, please contact us for legal advice.

On December 2, 2019, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that au pairs, like any other domestic worker, are protected by the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Laws.  In Capron v. Office of the AG of Mass., 944 F.3d 9, 12-13 (1st Cir. 2019), the Court was asked by Cultural Care, a DOS-approved private placement agency based in Massachusetts, to issue a ruling that the “Au Pair Program” preempts Massachusetts from requiring host families to comply with its wage and hour laws.  The Court, however, declined to do so ruling that while the relevant DOS regulations set a federal regulatory floor on au pair participant wage and hour protections, they do not set a ceiling that limits the wage and hour protections that states may provide to au pair participants.  The Court held that from the text of the DOS regulations applicable to the Au Pair Program, “all one can tell….[is] the Au Pair Program operates parallel to, rather than in place of, state employment laws that concern wages and hours and that protect domestic workers generally, at least with respect to the obligations that such state law wage and hour measures impose on host families to do more than what the FLSA itself requires.”

If you are a participant in the Au Pair Program and you believe that you are not being paid in compliance with the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Laws, please contact us for legal advice. Au pairs areprotected.

au pairs areprotected

Overtime pay for inside sales work. On May 8, 2019, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) issued guidance for all employees in Massachusetts who are inside salespersons and receive payment on a 100% commission basis.  In Sullivan v. Sleepy’s. LLC., 482 Mass. 227 (2019), the Court was asked to answer 3 questions.

First, the Court was asked if an employee’s commissions and draws may be credited against overtime wages.   The employer argued that they complied with the requirements of the Overtime Statute because they provided their employees with draws and commissions that equaled or exceeded 1 * the minimum wage * the number of hours worked up to 40, plus 1.5 * the minimum wage * the numbers worked in excess of 40 hours.  The SJC, however, held that such retroactive allocation is impermissible and that an additional overtime payment was owed.  They reached this conclusion because, “[i]f employers could undertake such retroactive allocation of payments, they would similarly lack incentive to comply with the wage and overtime statutes in the first place.” Overtime pay for inside sales work.

Second, the Court was asked to determine what the regular rate of pay was for purposes of computing any additional overtime payments.  The Court held that “the overtime rate is…one and one-half times the minimum wage for one hundred percent commission employees.”

Finally, the Court was asked if these same employees would be entitled to a separate payment for Sunday pay.  The Sunday Pay Statute provides that “[a]ny store or shop…which employs more than a total of seven persons, including the proprietor…shall compensate all employees engaged in the work performed on Sunday…at a rate not less than one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate.”  Attributing a similar purpose to the Overtime Statute and the Sunday Pay Statute, the SJC held that a 100% commissioned inside salesperson should receive payment for hours worked on a Sunday at a rate of one and one half times the minimum wage.

If you are inside salesperson who was paid on a 100% commission basis and worked more than 40 hours a week or on Sundays, you may be entitled to additional compensation.   Please contact us for legal advice. Overtime pay for inside sales work.

An interesting question arose recently. Is an employee who settles a case under the Wage Act still entitled to an award of attorney’s fees?

On February 19, 2019,  the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled so, that employees who settle cases brought pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”) are indeed entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees, unless those are made part of the settlement.

In Ferman v. Sturgis Cleaners, Inc., 481 Mass. 488 (2019), the Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay them approximately $28,000 in unpaid wages. On the eve of trial, the parties participated in a mediation that resulted in an agreement to settle the case for $20,500. Importantly, however, the parties reserved the issue of the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees for resolution by the Court. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs did not prevail, as required by the Wage Act, because they did not obtain judicial approval of the private settlement. The Plaintiffs, however, argued that the Court must apply the “catalyst test,”  whereby a Plaintiff may qualify as a prevailing party under the Wage Act if the “lawsuit is a necessary and important factor in causing the defendant to grant a material portion of the requested relief, a settlement agreement.” Employees who settle cases

The SJC held that the catalyst test applies in the context of determining prevailing parties under the Wage Act, because it promotes the two major purposes of a statutory fee-shifting provision: 1) to act as a powerful disincentive against unlawful conduct; and 2) to provide representation in cases that otherwise would not be financially prudent for an attorney to take on. “The catalyst test thus recognizes that successful litigation may be reflected in settlements as well as court rulings, as settlements are often ‘the products of pressure exerted by [a] lawsuit.’”

As a result, the SJC affirmed that the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover approximately $16,000 in attorneys fees and $1,000 in costs, in addition to the amount they received from their settlement. While attorneys’ fees are often negotiated privately during a settlement, Ferman provides a roadmap for seeking judicial intervention if the amount owed to the attorneys is the only impediment to settlement.

If you’re finding it hard to get paid your wages, let us know. We may be able to help.

It is well established law that the purpose of the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”) is to prevent the unreasonable detention of wages by the employers in the Commonwealth.  For this reason, any purported waiver of the rights afforded under the Wage Act are strongly disfavored.  Moreover, to protect against the possibility “that the strong protections afforded by the Wage Act could be unknowingly frittered away under the cover of a general release in an employer-employee termination agreement,” the Supreme Judicial Court held that such an agreement “will be enforceable as to the statutorily provided rights and remedies conferred by the Wage Act only if [it] is stated in clear and unmistakable terms.”   “In other words, the release must be plainly worded and understandable to the average individual, and it must specifically refer to the rights and claims under the Wage Act that the employee is waiving.” Union workers may lose.

On September 5, 2018, the Massachusetts Appeals Court was asked to consider the concept of waiver in the context of collective bargaining agreements (”CBAs”).  In Parris v. Sheriff of Suffolk Cnty., 93 Mass. App. Ct. 864 (2018), the Court was asked to determine whether a provision in the CBAs between the sheriff and the unions representing his employees was a valid request in writing by the employees to be paid in a different manner than that set forth in the Wage Act.  Additionally, the Court was asked to determine whether the CBAs in question effectively waived the employees’ rights under the Wage Act.

The Court held that while the unions had the authority, through collective bargaining, to request that payment of overtime wages be made under a schedule that differs from what is provided in the Wage Act, nonetheless the CBAs at issue were not effective to waive the employees’ rights under the Wage Act.

Pursuant to G. L. c. 150E, unions are the “exclusive representative of all the employees … for the purpose of collective bargaining,”  and “are empowered to act on the employees’ behalf with respect to wages, hours…and any other terms and conditions of employment.’”   Accordingly, the unions possess the right to speak exclusively for all the employees on mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.   Thus, to harmonize the Wage Act with c. 150E, the Court held “that the unions may act on behalf of their members to exercise the employees’ election under the Wage Act to alter the timing of the overtime payments.” Union workers may lose.

Despite the fact that unions have the authority to waive an employee’s rights under the Wage Act, the Court held that the CBAs at issue did not contain the requisite waivers.  This is because the “Commonwealth’s fundamental public policy ‘to provide strong statutory protection for employees and their right to wages, would require, at the minimum, a clear and unmistakable waiver.”   The Court determined that the “CBAs here do not meet this high standard.”

Thus, the Court has made it clear that any attempt on behalf of an employee to skirt the statutory protections of the Wage Act will be subject to strict scrutiny.  If you are an employee who has been told that you waived your rights under the Wage Act, either through a private agreement or a CBA, please contact us for legal advice.

If you’re working in a union, while you may be getting better treatment on the one hand, you may be losing valuable rights on the other.

Check back here for more updates. Or follow us on Twitter: @GordonLawGrp

Gordon Interviewed About Pay Equity Law: Key Insights on Massachusetts’ Equal Pay Act

In a recent interview, Gordon of Gordon Law Group shared valuable insights about the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act and its growing importance in the fight for wage equality. The interview, conducted by a leading legal news outlet, dives into the specifics of the law, its impact on employers and employees, and the continued efforts to close the gender pay gap in Massachusetts. With gender-based wage disparities still prevalent in many industries, Gordon’s expertise provides crucial context for both businesses and workers navigating this evolving area of employment law.

What the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act Means for Employers

During the interview, Gordon discussed the key provisions of the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, which took effect in 2018. The law prohibits employers from paying employees of different genders different wages for comparable work, with very few exceptions. This includes ensuring that pay equity is maintained for employees in similar roles, even if their job titles differ, or they work at different locations within the same organization.

Gordon explained that while the law provides employees with more protection against gender-based wage disparities, employers must take proactive steps to ensure compliance. “Employers need to conduct regular pay audits, establish transparent pay practices, and make sure that job descriptions are clear and aligned with actual responsibilities,” Gordon emphasized.

While the letter is limited to sexual harassment claims, this is a stunning development and signals a strong shift.

As the Attorneys General noted:

“While there may be benefits to arbitration provisions in other contexts, they do not extend to sexual harassment claims. Victims of such serious misconduct should not be constrained to pursue relief from decision makers who are not trained as judges, are not qualified to act as courts of law, and are not positioned to ensure that such victims are accorded both procedural and substantive due process. Every single attorney.

Additional concerns arise from the secrecy requirements of arbitration clauses, which disserve the public interest by keeping both the harassment complaints and any settlements confidential. This veil of secrecy may then prevent other persons similarly situated from learning of the harassment claims so that they, too, might pursue relief. Ending mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims would help to put a stop to the culture of silence that protects perpetrators at the cost of their victims.”

Check back here for more updates. Or follow us on Twitter: @GordonLawGrp

“I think it would have led to corruption at the mayor’s office and [the verdict] would have been worse.” Gordon stated.

“I would have given a different closing argument: The fish rots from the head down,” Gordon said. “That’s what I would have started my closing argument with.”

View the article from the Brockton Enterprise here.

Since that verdict, the City commissioned a law firm to write a report suggesting that evidence from witnesses not called by the City would have resulted in a better result for the City, fully exonerating it from the retaliation claim. Gordon disagreed.Since that verdict, the City commissioned a law firm to write a report suggesting that evidence from witnesses not called by the City would have resulted in a better result for the City, fully exonerating it from the retaliation claim. Gordon disagreed.

Since that verdict, the City commissioned a law firm to write a report suggesting that evidence from witnesses not called by the City would have resulted in a better result for the City, fully exonerating it from the retaliation claim. Gordon disagreed.

DOL Changes Rules on Unpaid Internships: What Employers Need to Know

In a move that will have significant implications for employers across the country, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has changed rules on unpaid internships, providing clearer guidelines on when internships must be compensated. These changes aim to protect workers from exploitation while ensuring that internships remain a valuable learning opportunity for students and early-career professionals. As part of this update, the DOL has redefined what constitutes a “bona fide” internship and clarified when an internship must be paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

What the DOL Changes Mean for Employers

The DOL’s new rules come at a time when unpaid internships have been increasingly scrutinized for potentially violating wage and labor laws. While internships are designed to provide valuable work experience, the DOL’s updated guidelines make it clear that employers cannot take advantage of interns by failing to pay them when their work qualifies as “employment.”

Under the new DOL rules, internships in the private sector are only exempt from payment if they meet a strict set of criteria. The intern must gain educational experience that aligns with their academic program, the internship must be for the benefit of the intern, and the intern cannot be displacing regular employees. Importantly, if the intern is performing work that directly benefits the employer—such as assisting with day-to-day business operations—they must be paid at least the minimum wage.

Key Changes in the DOL’s Internship Guidelines

1. Educational Benefit Must Be Clear: The internship must primarily benefit the intern, not the employer. Interns should be engaged in tasks that provide hands-on learning experiences directly related to their academic goals or career development. Work that merely supports the business operations of the company (like filing, answering phones, or general office tasks) may no longer qualify as unpaid work.
2. No Displacement of Paid Employees: Under the new rules, interns should not replace regular employees. Interns are meant to supplement existing teams, not take on tasks that a paid worker would typically perform. This is a critical distinction that could determine whether an internship program complies with federal wage and labor laws.
3. Clear Understanding of Unpaid Internships: If an employer is offering an unpaid internship, they must ensure that the position meets all of the educational and non-exploitative criteria laid out by the DOL. Internships that don’t meet these standards must be paid in accordance with the minimum wage laws.
4. Internship Duration: The length of an internship has also come under scrutiny. While there are no hard-and-fast rules regarding the duration, internships that extend too long without a clear educational component might raise red flags with the DOL. Employers should ensure that the internship is time-limited and focused on skill-building rather than just cheap labor.

Click here for article.

Click here for radio interview podcast.

Of course, if you’re experiencing sexual harassment or any other issues in the workplace, give us a call.

Gordon Interviewed About Matt Lauer Termination: Insights on Workplace Harassment and Employment Law

In a recent interview, Gordon of Gordon Law Group provided expert legal analysis and commentary on the highly publicized Matt Lauer termination case, a situation that garnered national attention due to allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct. Lauer, the former NBC Today Show anchor, was dismissed in 2017 after accusations surfaced that he had engaged in inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues. Gordon’s insights shed light on the legal implications of such high-profile terminations and what both employees and employers can learn from this case in terms of workplace harassment, legal protections, and the termination process.

Key Takeaways from Gordon’s Interview on Matt Lauer’s Termination

In the interview, Gordon addressed several critical issues related to Matt Lauer’s termination and the broader implications for workplace dynamics, particularly when it comes to harassment allegations in the workplace. Some of the key points Gordon made include:

1. Legal Protections Against Workplace Harassment: Lauer’s termination highlights the importance of employers creating a safe work environment that is free from harassment. Gordon emphasized that, under both federal and state laws, employees have a right to work in an environment where they are not subjected to discrimination or harassment based on gender, race, or any other protected status. Employers who fail to address complaints effectively may face serious legal consequences, as seen in the high-profile cases involving public figures like Lauer.
2. The Importance of Clear Workplace Policies: Gordon noted that one of the biggest takeaways from the Matt Lauer case is the necessity of clear, enforced workplace policies around harassment, reporting mechanisms, and the consequences of misconduct. He pointed out that while NBC initially dismissed Lauer following the allegations, their failure to publicly disclose their investigative process led to questions about the transparency and fairness of the decision-making process. Employers must ensure that policies are in place that not only address what constitutes harassment but also provide a clear path for employees to report concerns without fear of retaliation.
3. Employment Contracts and Termination Clauses: As part of the discussion, Gordon addressed the legal aspects of termination clauses and severance agreements, which play a key role in cases like Lauer’s. He explained that many employees, especially high-profile individuals, have negotiated severance packages that include terms about public disclosures and non-compete clauses. In Lauer’s case, NBC and the former anchor likely had legal agreements in place that governed his departure, highlighting the importance of understanding one’s employment contract and rights when facing potential termination.

And, of course, if you are asked to take a lie detector test, give us a call before you do.

A deep and ongoing Supreme Court class action arbitration divide exists among federal and state courts regarding the legality of mandatory arbitration clauses, workplace class-action waivers, and employee bargaining imbalance. The cases argue whether employers can require workers to sign agreements that both:

• Block access to courtroom litigation
• Prevent employees from filing claims on behalf of others similarly affected

The legal conflict raises concerns about fairness, enforceability, employee rights under collective remedies law, and the boundaries of employer-written arbitration contracts.

Employment law perspectives differ sharply between judicial philosophies. Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged that many employees sign agreements without real negotiation power, often resembling historical unfair labor contracts such as yellow dog agreements or forced waivers, where refusal could cost them their job opportunities.

Conversely, judges like Chief Justice John Roberts take a stricter contractual interpretation, asking whether arbitration clauses and class waivers should be considered universally illegal or evaluated case-by-case based only on statutory conflict with federal arbitration law.

Why this legal debate matters to the workplace:

The Supreme Court class action arbitration divide could shift:

1. Whether arbitration agreements override group lawsuit rights
2. If employees can seek remedies collectively despite signed waivers
3. How courts treat power imbalance in employment contract enforcement
4. How far employers can go in limiting legal recourse at hiring

What employees should know now:

Courts still evaluate public policy fairness and statutory rights

Most arbitration clauses are not automatically illegal

Class-action waivers are under legal challenge, not fully settled

Signing does not always eliminate all legal options

State employment statutes may conflict with federal arbitration enforcement

The updated pregnant worker reasonable accommodation law significantly widens these protections. The law ensures that companies must demonstrate compliance not just on paper, but in daily workplace practices. Employers are still permitted to deny accommodations if they can prove undue hardship, but the burden of proof is increasingly shifting toward documented, transparent, and ethically supported employment decisions rather than automatic denial.

Key protections under the new framework include:

• Employers must provide reasonable pregnancy-related accommodations, including rest breaks when medically or physically justified.
• Employees cannot be retaliated against, demoted, or penalized for requesting or using a pregnancy accommodation.
• Hiring managers may not reject pregnant applicants if they are capable of performing the essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation.
• Employers may not force workers onto leave if continued work is possible with adjustments.
• Companies must maintain documented accommodation review logs, HR compliance trails, and legally vetted response procedures to avoid exposure risks.

This law reinforces a simple principle: workers should be able to continue their professional duties without choosing between employment and pregnancy safety.

Government agencies such as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continue to emphasize that pregnancy accommodation denial and retaliation remain top compliance audit targets.

Corporate failure to honor employee accommodation requests can now lead to devastating personal impact, workforce distrust, internal legal escalation, and public accountability damage. Organizations must update internal policies, manager training, accommodation request pathways, retaliation safeguards, and ongoing legal compliance oversight to ensure workplace safety is practiced, not just stated.

The Purpose of the Withdrawn Guidance

The former guidance was introduced during the Obama administration to address persistent judicial inconsistency surrounding worker classification. Courts across the country—sometimes even courts applying the same state or federal precedent—issued conflicting rulings on who qualifies as an employee versus an independent contractor for purpose of wage rights, overtime eligibility, retaliation protection, and personnel accountability.

To resolve those systemic differences, the DOL’s 2016 guidance encouraged courts to use a broad economic realities test, emphasizing practical work conditions over contract title. That test specifically analyzed:

• The level of control a company exercises over the worker
• The worker’s ability to operate as an independent business entity
• Who assumes financial risk for expenses and operational costs
• Whether the work function is central to the company’s core business model
• The worker’s ability to increase profit through managerial decisions rather than simply working more hours

This framework was intended to discourage companies from relying solely on 1099 agreements to classify a workforce as independent contractors when the actual role function was operationally inseparable from the company’s main offering.

DOL Statement on Employer Responsibilities

Despite withdrawing the guidance, the DOL issued a public clarification stating that the withdrawal “does not change the legal responsibilities of employers.” This means companies may still be held liable under preexisting statutory obligations for wage rights, retaliation claims, bargaining power imbalance exploitation, documentation integrity, interactive policy review failures, expense burden disputes, and other protections arising under federal labor law standards.

Expected Judicial Reversion and Workplace Consequences

Legal analysts anticipate many federal and state courts will now revert to earlier precedents and narrower interpretations of the economic realities test. This could reduce the likelihood of large arbitration opt-out collectives and group-wide misclassification lawsuits that depend on broad statutory interpretation for employee status.

This reversion may affect industries such as:

• Rideshare services
• Nationwide delivery fleets
• Franchised business worker models
• Multi-employer worksite environments
• Logistics partners classified as independent operators
• Staffing networks assigning operational risk to workers without managerial autonomy

Who This Matters For

Workers who are currently classified as independent contractors or work in joint employment conditions should understand that courts will now apply existing statutory frameworks without relying on DOL-expanded interpretation. Employers may still be required to engage in classification accuracy debates depending on jurisdiction, retaliation evidence, documentation proof, hiring practice records, policy enforcement step compliance, and the economic realities underpinning the working relationship.

The EST law, effective since July 1, 2015, requires all Massachusetts employers to allow workers to earn and use up to 40 hours of sick time per calendar year. The updated regulations outline how time should be accrued, paid, and administered.

Who Is Covered

• Applies to all employers operating within Massachusetts
• Eligible employees may accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick time annually

Key Regulation Highlights

1. Concurrent Leave
Earned sick time can run at the same time as approved leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and other Massachusetts leave laws, allowing employees to receive pay while on protected leave.

2. Travel Time Counts
If sick time is used for medical care, employees may include reasonable travel time related to the visit—such as trips to and from a doctor’s appointment in their EST hours.

3. Regular Pay Rate Required
Sick time must be paid at the employee’s normal hourly rate, ensuring no reduction in standard wages.

4. Accrual Cap Options
Employers may pause additional EST accrual for employees who already have 40 hours of unused sick time banked, until part of that time is used.

5. Carryover (Rollover) Rules

• Employees can carry over up to 40 unused hours into the next calendar year
• Exception: Rollover is not required if the employer “front-loads” the full 40 hours at the start of the calendar year

6. End-of-Year Payout
Employers may choose to pay out unused sick time (up to 40 hours) at year-end, but this is optional, not mandatory.

7. Rehired Employees
If an employee has a break in service, previously accrued EST remains available for use for up to 12 months after rehire. No new 90-day waiting/vesting period is required.

Employer Compliance Reminder

To stay compliant, businesses should:

• Update employee handbooks
• Adjust accrual tracking systems
• Ensure payroll policies meet regular-rate payment requirements
• Train management on eligible usage and rollover rules
• Maintain accurate time-off documentation

Non-compliance may lead to financial penalties, claims related to wage violations, or state audits.

Bottom Line

These updated clarifications provide clearer direction on employee entitlements and employer obligations under Massachusetts sick leave law. Employers should review internal policies now to ensure full compliance and avoid legal or financial exposure.

For questions about this law or its interpretation, contact our office to speak with an attorney.

Gordon explains that these rulings reflect a shift toward protecting modest-salary supervisors who historically met both salary and duties tests that allowed employers to avoid paying overtime wages even when employees worked more than 40 hours per week.

What Are the Department of Labor Overtime Rule Changes?

The new interpretation from the Department of Labor may revise how overtime exemptions apply, particularly for managers earning near the minimum salary threshold tied to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

These protections fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs wage rules, hour limits, and worker classification. Historically, many salaried managers earning at least $455 per week, and performing “managerial duties,” were exempt from overtime pay. The Department of Labor is now reassessing whether low-income supervisors truly fit the intended exemption.

A link to that article is included here (Boston Globe Article). Let me know your thoughts.

Massachusetts is moving toward one of the most significant overhauls to its noncompete framework, balancing worker mobility with economic growth incentives for companies operating in the Commonwealth.

Attorney Philip Gordon delivered formal testimony before Massachusetts Senators and House Representatives addressing the impact and intent of the proposed noncompete modernization bill.

The Massachusetts Senate passed the legislation by 32 votes to 7, signaling strong legislative support for narrowing enforcement conditions and strengthening rights for employees while maintaining structured protections for eligible companies.

The proposed changes to noncompete laws in Massachusetts would ban those clauses for workers classified as nonexempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Exempt employees – typically, professionals, administrators or executives – would continue to be subject to noncompete clauses, but with more predictable results. 

Noncompetes now would last only for six months, and they would be valid only if limited to a predefined geographic region and specific employment duties. Thus, if an employee finds new employment after six months, in a different area, or with different responsibilities, they would be allowed to begin working immediately.

Other major changes include a requirement that advance notice of any noncompete be provided to individuals prior to employment, and that the clauses themselves be clear and specific.

Click here to view the latest version of Massachusetts Noncompete bill.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

The arrests were made in connection with the “second phase” of the Secure Border Initiative. Phase one primarily focused on increasing security along the borders and the removal and return of illegal immigrants now in the U.S. Phase two, among other things, aims to bolster enforcement of workplace compliance with existing immigration laws by using all the means at its disposal. Where previous enforcement in this area was sporadic and typically involved civil fines and penalties, the IFCO experience illustrates an increased willingness to use criminal sanctions.

An ICE sampling of 5,800 IFCO employees found that approximately 53% of them held “faulty” social security numbers, including those of dead persons, children and people who were not employed by IFCO. The Social Security Administration requested that the company address the situation and received no response. The subsequent raids targeted 40 IFCO plants in 26 states, including Massachusetts.

The seven current and former managers netted in the raids were charged by federal prosecutors with “conspiracy to transport, harbor and encourage illegal workers to reside in the United States for commercial advantage and private financial gain.” Managers allegedly induced illegal immigrants to work at the various plants by asking them to falsify W-2s and, in some cases, stating that no documentation was necessary for employment.