George v. National Water Main Cleaning Co.
477 Mass. 371
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Employees of National Water Main Cleaning Company filed a class action under the Massachusetts Wage Act (G. L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150) claiming unpaid wages; case removed to federal court and settled except for a certified legal question.
- District Court certified to the SJC the question whether statutory prejudgment interest (G. L. c. 231, §§ 6B or 6C) is available when treble damages are awarded as “liquidated damages” under G. L. c. 149, § 150 (as amended 2008).
- Before 2008, treble damages under § 150 were discretionary and treated as punitive; the 2008 amendment made treble damages mandatory (“shall be awarded”) and labeled them “liquidated damages.”
- Massachusetts law separately mandates prejudgment interest by statute (G. L. c. 231, § 6H) when interest is not otherwise provided by law; historically Wage Act awards included prejudgment interest on lost wages.
- Defendants argued the 2008 characterization imported the FLSA approach and precluded prejudgment interest (i.e., liquidated damages already compensate for delay). Plaintiffs argued prejudgment interest remains available on the underlying lost wages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 150’s characterization of trebled damages as “liquidated damages” precludes statutory prejudgment interest on Wage Act awards | George: Prejudgment interest still applies to the underlying lost wages/benefits; labeling does not eliminate interest | Defendants: "Liquidated damages" under § 150 adopts FLSA logic to preclude prejudgment interest (would double-compensate) | Court: Prejudgment interest under G. L. c. 231, § 6H is added to lost wages/benefits but not to the trebled (liquidated) portion |
| Whether § 150 impliedly repealed G. L. c. 231, § 6H as to Wage Act awards | George: No implied repeal; § 6H and § 150 can be harmonized | Defendants: § 150’s labeling shows intent to include interest within liquidated damages, effectively replacing § 6H | Court: No implied repeal; repeal by implication disfavored; no express language or clear inconsistency to justify repeal |
| Whether Massachusetts intended to mirror FLSA treatment of liquidated damages (no interest) | George: Legislature did not intend to import FLSA consequences (and did not adopt FLSA’s good-faith exception) | Defendants: Characterization signals adoption of the FLSA approach | Court: Legislature likely knew FLSA usage but did not intend to replicate FLSA’s preclusion of prejudgment interest; statutory framework (§ 6H) shows different Massachusetts policy |
| Scope of prejudgment interest calculation under amended § 150 | George: Interest should be calculated on full judgment including trebled amount | Defendants: Interest not available at all on trebled/liquidated portion | Court: Interest is calculated only on the compensatory amount (lost wages/benefits), not on the trebled liquidated portion |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492 (2013) (discussed scope and interpretation of Wage Act remedies)
- Wiedmann v. The Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 698 (2005) (treble damages were discretionary under prior § 150)
- Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 432 Mass. 165 (2000) (treble damages characterized as punitive when discretionary)
- Rosnov v. Molloy, 460 Mass. 474 (2011) (treats 2008 amendment as making treble damages mandatory)
- Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945) (FLSA liquidated damages intended to preclude interest; federal precedent discussed)
- Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (1942) (liquidated damages under FLSA understood as compensatory)
- Sterilite Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 397 Mass. 837 (1986) (prejudgment interest may be added to liquidated damages under Massachusetts law)
- DeSantis v. Commonwealth Energy Sys., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 759 (2007) (upheld prejudgment interest on Wage Act lost-wage awards prior to 2008 amendment)
- McEvoy Travel Bur., Inc. v. Norton Co., 408 Mass. 704 (1990) (prejudgment interest added to actual damages but not to multiple punitive damages)
- NPS, LLC v. Minihane, 451 Mass. 417 (2008) (defines "liquidated damages" in contract context)
- Cochrane v. Forbes, 267 Mass. 417 (1929) (early definition and treatment of liquidated damages)