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.

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.

World Class Musician Says She Makes 75% of What Her Male Counterparts Make—Now She Is Suing for Equal Pay

A world class musician says she has been paid just 75% of what her male counterparts make for the same work, leading her to file a lawsuit for equal pay. The prominent musician, whose career spans international stages, claims that despite performing the same duties, she has faced significant wage disparities based on gender. The case is generating major buzz in the arts and entertainment industries, as it sheds light on the ongoing issue of pay inequality even among highly accomplished professionals.

The Disparity: Unequal Pay for Comparable Work

The lawsuit, filed by a world class musician, focuses on the wage gap she has experienced throughout her career. Despite performing the same roles, with the same level of skill, experience, and responsibility, she has been consistently paid less than her male colleagues. The musician’s complaint highlights the stark contrast in compensation, where she makes only 75% of what male musicians earn for equivalent performances and work.

The suit specifically alleges that the employer in question has violated equal pay laws, including the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, which mandates that employees be paid equally for comparable work regardless of gender. This case represents an important step toward closing the gender pay gap in the arts, a field where such disparities are often overlooked.