Crocker v. Townsend Oil Co.
464 Mass. 1
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Crocker and Barrasso, former Townsend Oil delivery drivers, allege Wage Act wages and overtime were owed due to misclassification as independent contractors.
- Townsend employed both hourly employees (with overtime) and independent contractor drivers; contractors owned their trucks and delivered oil under Townsend’s schedule and branding.
- Each plaintiff signed contract carrier agreements; Barrasso and Crocker later incorporated their delivery businesses, with new agreements written between Townsend and their corporate entities.
- In 2007, termination agreements with reciprocal general releases were signed; plaintiffs received monetary payments and claim they were unaware these could affect Wage Act rights.
- Plaintiffs filed suit December 18, 2009 after a related wage action (Amero) brought against Townsend; summary judgment had previously been granted and later vacated.
- Court analyzes whether Wage Act claims are time-barred, and whether general releases bar Wage Act claims, concluding that releases do not waive Wage Act rights absent explicit language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wage Act claims are governed by a three-year statute of limitations rather than the two-year overtime period. | Crocker/Barrasso rely on Wage Act three-year limit for wages and unpaid overtime. | Townsend argues two-year limit for unpaid overtime should apply, aligning with §1A/§20A, with potential subversion via Wage Act. | Wage Act three-year limit applies to wages; overtime claims may be pursued at regular rate if barred by two-year limit. |
| Whether discovery or fraudulent concealment toll the three-year limitations period. | Discovery or concealment tolling extends time to file. | No concealment or tolling; plaintiffs knew facts supporting employee status. | No tolling under discovery or fraudulent concealment; statute not tolled. |
| Whether continuing violation doctrine allows recovery for damages outside the limitations period. | Damages outside period may be recoverable if part of continuing wage underpayment | Discrete Wage Act violations do not extend via continuing violation. | Damages restricted to those within the three-year period prior to filing. |
| Whether general releases in termination agreements bar Wage Act claims. | General releases purport to waive all claims, potentially including Wage Act claims. | Release language broad enough to bar Wage Act claims should apply. | General releases do not waive Wage Act claims unless explicitly and unmistakably referring to Wage Act rights. |
| Whether the Wage Act claims may be pursued for damages accruing within three years prior to filing, despite releases and limitations. | Plaintiffs seek damages within three-year window under Wage Act. | Limitations and releases limit recovery. | Plaintiffs may recover for damages within three years prior to filing; releases do not extinguish those Wage Act rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mogilevsky v. Bally Total Fitness Corp., 263 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Mass. 2003) (allows Wage Act recovery for time barred overtime at regular rate)
- Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 452 Mass. 337 (Mass. 2008) (fraudulent concealment tolling requires actual concealment; no fiduciary duty here)
- Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Mkts., Inc., 424 Mass. 501 (Mass. 1997) (limits tolling when no fiduciary duty present)
- Camara v. Attorney Gen., 458 Mass. 756 (Mass. 2011) (defining 'special contract' in Wage Act context)
- Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr., Inc., 454 Mass. 390 (Mass. 2009) (settlement/arbitration decisions balanced with anti-discrimination policies)
- Silvestris v. Tantasqua Regional Sch. Dist., 446 Mass. 756 (Mass. 2006) (discrete wage claims cannot be extended by continuing violation doctrine)
- Eck v. Godbout, 444 Mass. 724 (Mass. 2005) (release enforceability and public policy considerations)