In 2011, the highest earning executive at Fannie Mae reportedly made $5.3 million, while Freddie Mac’s top executive earned $3.8 million. In 2012, the former FHFA director substantially decreased their annual pay to $600,000.

The argument for increases

According to Watt, salary increases will help attract top talent to opportunities with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as retain these individuals as employees. He is reportedly allowing Freddie Mac executives to submit a report regarding desired increases for CEO salaries.

The argument against increases

In response to Watt’s consideration of the issue, Royce responded, “I’m deeply disappointed with Director Watt’s decision to open the door to multi-million dollar salaries at the GSEs, which continue to be propped up by tax payers.”

Under Royce’s legislation, the CEO salaries could reportedly decrease to around $200,000. He is joined in his opposition to the increases by other members of Congress, as well as the Treasury Department.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are currently under a government conservatorship, which was formed under the 2008 bailout, where the two companies received a combined total of $187 billion. At that time, they were placed under the supervision of the FHFA.

If you have questions about your salary or this proposed legislation, contact our office to speak with a trained attorney.

The U.S. Department of Labor is reviewing new legislation to change overtime salary limits.

Right now, exempt executive, admin, and professional workers must earn at least $455 per week. This minimum lets employers skip overtime pay. But this may soon change. U.S. Department of Labor wants to raise the weekly salary floor in stages.

The plan may look like this:

• Week salary minimum rises to $1,090
• Salary will double for exempt job types
• Overtime must be paid if salary falls below the limit

This rise may roll out over 3 years. Employers won’t be able to avoid overtime rules unless they meet the new minimum pay level.

Changes for Highly-Compensated Workers

The legislation also affects highly-paid roles.

The yearly salary exemption may rise to $125,000. This shifts from the current $100,000. The new limit may also adjust for inflation in the future. This keeps the floor updated over time.

Who Is Affected by This Legislation?

The proposal targets these job groups:

• Executive employees
• Administrative employees
• Professional employees
• Highly‑compensated employees

If these workers earn below the new minimum, then overtime rules will apply. Employers must pay extra hours worked over 40 per week.

If you have any questions about the legislation or any other overtime questions, contact us today.

Two crucial pieces of proposed legislation will be decided by July 31^st.  The proposals include a hike in the minimum wage to $11.00 and a ban on noncompete agreements. Both proposals are great news for employees.

If the legislation for the new minimum wage passes, then by January 1, 2017 the minimum wage in Massachusetts will be $11.00. Currently, the minimum wage is $8.00 and it would rise in increments until it reaches $11.00 in 2017. This will be the highest minimum wage of any state.

Some employers argue that noncompete agreements are necessary to protect trade secrets and intellectual property.  Yet, they also drain our state of some of its brightest talent, requiring those workers to move to states that restrict noncompetition agreements and benefitting companies in those states at the expense of our own.  New legislation, proposed as part of an economic stimulus package and supported by Governor Patrick, would ban noncompetes and restore our state’s base.

If you have any questions about the new proposals, contact us.

If you have any other questions surrounding executive compensation, check out our FAQs page or contact us today.

A System That Creates Fear, Not Fair Competition

Right now, non-competes stay legally enforceable in many states, including Massachusetts. That means competitors rarely improve their policies. Instead, most firms follow the lowest market standard to avoid lawsuits. Because of this system, companies fear policy upgrades may hurt competitiveness. This traps workers in unfair barriers.

The Core Flaw the Courts Don’t Always Address

The problem begins with a broken assumption. Some companies believe switching to a competitor damages business trust, even if proper care exists. However, confidentiality laws already protect trade secrets. Additionally, intellectual property laws block stolen proprietary ideas. Still, many firms ask workers to sign non-competes as a backup shield. This creates a heavier impact because of uneven power between employer and employee. Even more, firms often enforce these clauses without urgent business evidence. Because of that, workers struggle to change jobs. Many stay blocked from new work for years. Worse yet, hiring companies avoid recruiting restricted workers. They fear expensive legal fights might follow. This reduces job availability unfairly. It also disrupts workforce planning for firms that genuinely want skilled staff.

Economic Damage Spills Into Communities Too

A mobility crisis grows when employees can’t switch companies freely. Additionally, many workers relocate to find work outside their field. This creates talent loss from local markets. Geographic talent pools fail to mature. More importantly, companies lose the advantage of growing industry ecosystems. Start-ups suffer hiring delays too. They struggle to recruit skilled staff who fear legal claims. Moreover, communities lose knowledge networks. This stunts multiplier growth. The economy weakens when talent leaves local markets permanently.

Why Reform Makes Sense for Everyone

A smart reform would help both worker freedom and business growth. It would also reduce expensive legal fights. It would strengthen local economies too. Because of this, the Massachusetts State Legislature should improve hiring fairness. It should also limit non-compete overuse. Similarly, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination supports fair worker classification. This spirit of protection should apply to job mobility rules too.

Key Reasons to Restrict Non-Competes

✅ Protect trade secrets using existing confidentiality and IP laws
✅ Stop misuse of job-critical production labor contracts
✅ Lower mobility barriers for workers
✅ Reduce expensive and distracting legal risks
✅ Support hiring fairness for start-ups and small firms
✅ Encourage local talent ecosystem growth
✅ Prevent workforce relocation stress for families

Final Verdict

For real mobility, fair hiring, and long-term growth, Massachusetts must raise the market standard. Most importantly, laws should protect business secrets without blocking worker careers unfairly. Massachusetts can still support fair competition. It can also stop contract misuse at the same time. In fact, restricting non-competes builds stronger local industries. Smart policies let workers grow careers without leaving their communities. In the end, fair job mobility strengthens families, companies, and the Commonwealth economy together.

In Smith v. Winter Place LLC, 447 Mass. 363 (August 1, 2006), the Supreme Judicial Court reversed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment finding in favor of defendant-employer and dismissing the retaliation claims of two plaintiff-employees who were terminated after they made a complaint to their manager about their employer’s violation of the tip-pooling law, 149, § 152. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with plaintiff’s contention that the anti-retaliation provision of the Massachusetts Wage Act, located at 149, § 148A, “extends the protection of the statute to employees who are penalized for taking “any action” to seek their rights under the laws governing wages and hours.” Because the employees made an internal complaint about a violation of the wage laws to their manager, they were protected under 149, § 148A, and thus the lower court’s grant of summary judgment which effectively dismissed their retaliation claim was held improper.

It is now clear that an employee need not file a complaint with the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General in order to receive the protections of 149, § 148A. Rather a “complaint made to an employer (or a manager of the employer) by an employee who reasonably believes that the wages he or she has been paid violate [wage] laws” is sufficient to gain the protections of the statute.

Bottom line: internal complaints of wage violations are enough to protect employees from retaliation under the Wage Act.

O’Connor and Lank formed an art transportation company, with O’Connor owning 37.5% and Lank owning 52%. Disagreements between the two festered and Lank terminated O’Connor. O’Connor complained that Lank couldn’t fire a fellow shareholder and sued Lank on a theory of breach of fiduciary duties owed to him by the majority shareholders.

The Superior Court found that the company was a closely held corporation, which required a higher standard of fiduciary duty among the shareholders and between the majority and minority shareholders. Rather than analyzing O’Connor’s status as an at-will employee, the Court looked to determine whether the defendant shareholders had a legitimate business interest in terminating him and if there were less harmful alternatives. Lank argued that the company had a legitimate business purpose for firing O’Connor, but the Court disagreed. It found that the majority shareholders, reacted with “much more an act of pique or anger on Lank’s behalf, or perhaps some clumsy effort to gain leverage in any negotiations that might thereafter occur.”

The Court held for O’Connor, awarding both lost wages from the termination as well as the reasonable value of his shares in the corporation – an amount equal to $218,000.

Section 13 (a)(1) of the FLSA generally requires that all employees earn at least the federal minimum wage (currently $5.15 per hour) and overtime pay of time-and-one-half for more than 40 hours worked per week. So-called “white collar” exemptions remove employees classified as “executive,” “administrative,” “professional,” “outside sales” or “computer employees” from FLSA coverage. A summary of the first three of these categories are set forth below.

The big news with the new regulations is that the salary basis is increased to $455 per week (from $155 and $250 per week under the old tests), and the “long test” and “short test” have been replaced with a “standard duties” test. By eliminating the long test, the general 20% rule has been revised upward so that now an exempt employee’s “primary” duty must be spent performing the exempt work. There are also special rules for individuals making in excess of $100,000 per year.

For the “Executive Exemption,” the job duties have been revised so that executives must do more than just supervise, they must have actual authority to hire or fire or their recommendations must be given “particular weight.” This seems to eliminate the exemption for many so-called assistant managers.

The new tests are set forth below.

“Executive” employees must:

1. be salaried, at a rate of no less than $455.00 per week;
2. be primarily engaged in management-related activities; and
3. be involved in the supervision of two or more other employees on a regular basis, including either the ability to hire and fire or to make recommendations concerning employees’ advancement or termination.

“Administrative” employees must:

1. be salaried, at a rate of no less than $455.00 per week;
2. be primarily engaged in “the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or [its] customers”; and
3. be able to exercise “discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance” in the fulfillment of their primary activities.

“Professional” employees must:

1. be salaried, at a rate of no less than $455.00 per week; and
2. be primarily engaged in activities requiring “knowledge of an advanced type [predominantly intellectual in character and requiring a consistent exercise of discretion and judgment] in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction”; or
3. be primarily engaged in “the performance of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor.”