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

46 | Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2022 ed. © 2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP 6. Stock Massachusetts law explicitly excludes employee stock purchase plans from the definition of wages. 253 The SJC has held that the statutory language is clear and there is “no room for speculation” as to whether stock purchase plans are included in the definition of wages. 254 Additionally, unvested stock, awarded as part of an employee bonus plan, does not constitute wages for the additional reason that unvested stock only becomes valuable when it vests, making it contingent upon further employment and therefore not yet earned by the employee. 255 7. Expense Reimbursements The Massachusetts Court of Appeals has suggested that the failure to reimburse expenses pursuant to a company reimbursement policy could constitute a failure to pay wages under the Wage Act. 256 While the court noted that the violation of a standard expense reimbursement arrangement would not typically constitute a violation of the Wage Act because the reimbursement is not compensation “earned” by “labor, service or performance,” it stressed the fact that the Wage Act prohibits an employer from exempting itself from timely and complete payment of wages by “special contracts . . . or by any other means.” 257 According to the court, the plaintiff’s complaint fairly alleged that the employer implemented a practice that “required the [plaintiff], under penalty of discharge, to advance, indefinitely, expenses for the employer’s benefit” and that “this was a sufficient allegation of ‘reasonable belief’” that the unreimbursed expenses fell within the scope of wages covered by the Wage Act. 258 C. How Must Wages Be Paid? 1. Checks and Drafts The Wage Act states that employers that pay wages to employees by check or draft must provide facilities for cashing the checks without requiring a deduction from the check or draft. 259 In 1980, the SJC opined on this outdated rule, holding that where the Commonwealth’s Department of Labor and Industries, which was previously responsible for the enforcement of the provision, had 253 M.G.L. ch. 154, § 8. 254 Weems , 453 Mass. at 157. 255 Id . See also Harrison v. NetCentric Corp. , 433 Mass. 465, 473-74 (2001). 256 Fraelick v. PerkettPR, Inc. , 83 Mass. App. Ct . 698, 706-8 (2013). See also Furtado v. Republic Parking Sys., LLC , Case No. 19-cv-11481-DJC, 2020 WL 996849, at *4 (D. Mass. Mar. 2, 2020) (recognizing that SJC “has not addressed whether t ravel expenses are considered wages” and refusing to dismiss claim for non-reimbursement of mileage); Cook v. Patient Educ., LLC , 465 Mass. 549, 550 n.6 (2013) (noting that “ the issue whether unreimbursed expenses qualify as wages is not before us”). 257 Fraelick , 83 Mass. App. Ct . at 706-08. 258 Id . at 708; see also Garcia v. Right at Home, Inc. , No. SUCV20150808BLS2, 2016 WL 3144372, at *4 (Mass. Super. Jan. 19, 2016) (cit ing Fraelick for the proposit ion that the Wage Act “prevent[s] an employer from effectively reducingwages by shift ing ordinary business cost s to the employee”). 259 M.G.L. ch. 149, § 148.