Camara v. Attorney General, 458 Mass. 756

ABC Disposal Policy allows deductions from wages for damages caused by a driver found at fault, in lieu of discipline, after a safety officer review and a final determination of fault by ABC management.
Deductions occur via written setoffs against wages; drivers may choose discipline instead of paying damages; average setoff reported as $15–$30 per week; no wage falls below minimum wage.
Audit by the Attorney General found $21,487.96 in deductions from 27 employees between 2004 and 2006; a civil citation followed in 2007 requiring restitution and a civil penalty.
ABC challenged the DALA decision in Superior Court; the court granted judgment on the pleadings reversing the DALA decision and voiding the citation.
The Attorney General appealed, arguing that §148’s prohibition on wage deductions constitutes a ‘special contract’ ban that cannot be overcome by employee assent, while ABC argued the deductions provided an immediate benefit and were not invalid.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts conducted de novo review on questions of law, giving deference to the AG’s reasonable interpretation of the Wage Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §148’s special contract prohibition bars wage deductions for fault-based setoffs.	ABC argues deductions are permitted as they confer an immediate benefit and are not prohibited by statute.	AG contends the special contract prohibition broadly bars deductions from earned wages regardless of employee assent.	Yes; deductions violate §148 unless they are valid setoffs under §150.
Whether the deductions qualify as valid setoffs under §150.	ABC asserts deductions are valid setoffs because debts are clear and established against the employee.	AG contends that valid setoffs require due process or a judgment/established indebtedness, which this policy lacks.	No; the policy does not constitute a valid setoff for a clear and established debt under §150.
Should the court treat ABC's unilateral fault determinations as setoffs despite the absence of independent adjudication.	ABC relies on Somers and similar authorities to suggest the debt is clear and established through internal determinations.	AG asserts the absence of independent determination negates the setoff rationale and aligns with the Wage Act’s protective purpose.	Unilateral internal determinations do not create valid setoffs; they fail to satisfy §150.

Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Attorney Gen., 454 Mass. 63 (Mass. 2009) (agencies' interpretations of wage laws receive deference when not inconsistent with text)
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n v. Boston, 435 Mass. 718 (Mass. 2002) (purpose of weekly wage law is to prevent detention of wages)
Somers v. Converged Access, Inc., 454 Mass. 582 (Mass. 2009) (valid set-off requires a clear, established debt with due process protections)
Buhl v. Viera, 328 Mass. 201 (Mass. 1952) (employee may be liable to employer for third-party damages but not via unilateral setoff without adjudication)
Mayhue’s Super Liquor Stores, Inc. v. Hodgson, 464 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1972) (setoffs for misappropriated funds can violate minimum wage where they reduce wages below statutory minimum)
Brennan v. Veterans Cleaning Serv., Inc., 482 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1973) (distinguishes setoffs for wage advances/third-party payments from wage deductions for regular damages)