Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules That A Release Must Specifically Reference The Massachusetts Wage Act In Order Be Binding Under That Statute

by

In Crocker v. Townsend Oil Company, Inc., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled this week that in order to release potential past claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act, the release must be plainly worded and understandable to the average person and must contain express language that Wage Act claims are being released. 

The SJC’s ruling arises out of a case involving alleged misclassification of employees as independent contractors.  The defendant, Townsend, is a home heating oil delivery business.  The plaintiffs, Edward Crocker and Joseph Barrasso, worked for Townsend delivering oil as independent contractors pursuant to contract carrier agreements.  Eventually, Townsend terminated its relationship with both plaintiffs using contract carrier termination agreements that contained a mutual general release of claims.   The plaintiffs subsequently sued Townsend for unpaid wages under the Wage Act, asserting that they were in fact employees and were entitled to unpaid wages (including overtime pay).  A Superior Court judge initially granted summary judgment in favor of Townsend, but a second judge vacated that decision, concluding that the general releases executed by the plaintiffs were insufficient to release the plaintiffs’ claims under the Wage Act.  The SJC ultimately transferred the case on its own motion to address the validity of the general release.

In concluding that the general releases executed by the plaintiffs were insufficient to waive Wage Act claims, the Court addressed the tension between its own policy of giving broad effect to general releases and specific language in the Wage Act prohibiting “special contracts” between employers and employees that would exempt employers from Wage Act liability.   (This language has been cited in the past to invalidate employee agreements to defer wages that are otherwise due.)  Citing important public policy considerations underlying the Wage Act,  the SJC held that a release can effectively cover Wage Act claims, but only if the release of the Wage Act claims is stated in “clear and unmistakable terms.”  The Court further explained that the release must be “plainly worded and understandable to the average individual” and must “specifically refer to the rights and claims under the Wage Act that the employee is waiving.”  The Court’s logic is that such clear wording will ensure that employees are not unwittingly waiving rights.

The take away from this decision is that employers should make a special effort to ensure that its release agreements meet the SJC’s new standard, including that the Massachusetts Wage Act is specifically referenced as a statute under which claims are being released.

Jonathan Keselenko and Chris Feudo
Foley Hoag LLP
Boston, Massachusetts

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: