Mass-Peculiarities: An Employers Guide to Wage & Hour Law in the Bay State 2022 Edition

© 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2022 ed. | 19 processes or of special circumstances affecting such establishments, including collective bargaining agreements . . . .” 71 b. Liability for Missed Breaks and Failure to Compensate Employees forWork Performed During Breaks As set forth above, an employer or an agent of the employer that violates the meal break statute is subject to prosecution by the Massachusetts Attorney General. An employee has no right to sue the employer for a violation of that statute. 72 However, when an employer does not properly compensate an employee for work performed during a missed meal break, the employee may take legal action for nonpayment of wages under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 148 (the Wage Act). 73 The following scenarios exemplify contrasting circumstances: Example 1: An employee is not provided a meal break, but the employer pays him or her for working through the break. Though the employee was fully compensated for the time, the employer has nonetheless violated the meal break statute and may face fines imposed by the Attorney General. In this circumstance, however, since the employee was paid for the missed break, the employee has no claim against the employer for nonpayment of wages. Example 2: An employee is not provided a meal break or does not take a complete meal break (i.e., goes back to work early), but the employer assumes the employee took the break and deducts thirty minutes from the employee’s time. Once again, the employer has violated the meal break statute and may face fines. In addition, since the employee was not compensated for the missed break, the employee may have a claim against the employer for nonpayment of wages and may bring suit under the Wage Act. 74 Employers should exercise caution in implementing timekeeping systems that automatically deduct a thirty-minute meal break or that prevent employees from logging back into work before their full thirty-minute break is taken. These types of systems can lead to nonpayment of wages claims when employers fail to make manual adjustments to account for the time actually worked. Employers therefore should typically confirm that any timekeeping system allows employees to record all time actually worked. 71 Id. 72 M.G.L. ch. 149, §§ 2 & 100. See also Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 452 Mass. 377, 373 (2008) (“ [T]he Legislature’s express language providing for enforcement by the At torney General . . . combined with it s specific provision of a private right of act ion for certain other sect ions of G.L. c. 149, but not for § 100, weighs heavily against recognizing a private right of act ion under § 100.”). 73 In addit ion, as explained at the end of this sect ion, the Massachuset t s Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has held that in some circumstances employees may pursue breach of cont ract claims for missed meal breaks. 74 M.G.L. ch. 149, § 150.