31 N.E.3d 60
Mass.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are licensed real estate salespersons who worked for MA brokerages Jacob Realty, NextGen Realty, and Boardwalk Properties, classified as independent contractors.
- Defendants paid commissions on completed transactions, issued 1099s, and required plaintiffs to pay their own taxes, with added desk fees and program deductions.
- Plaintiffs alleged misclassification under the independent contractor statute, G. L. c. 149, § 148B, seeking employee status and wage-type remedies.
- Defendant brokerages argued real estate licensing law (§ 87RR) permits salespersons to be affiliated with a broker as employees or independent contractors, creating a conflict with § 148B.
- Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for defendants, concluding § 148B does not apply due to the licensing regime; plaintiffs pursued direct appellate review.
- Court held that § 148B does not apply to real estate salespersons because § 87RR expressly permits affiliation as either employee or independent contractor, creating a hierarchy of statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the independent contractor statute apply to real estate salespersons? | Monell argues presumption of employment under § 148B applies to salespersons. | Boston Pads and brokers contend § 87RR governs, overriding § 148B. | No; § 148B does not apply to real estate salespersons due to § 87RR. |
| What is the controlling framework for classifying real estate salespersons as employee or independent contractor? | Plaintiffs seek employee status under the independent contractor framework. | Defendants rely on real estate licensing statute § 87RR to permit either status, with broker supervision. | § 87RR controls; the independent contractor framework does not apply, but the decision does not resolve final employee/independent-contractor classification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 465 Mass. 607 (Mass. 2013) (presumption of employee status; three-factor framework)
- Lipsitt v. Plaud, 466 Mass. 240 (Mass. 2013) (broad interpretation of Wage Act remedies)
- Taylor v. Eastern Connection Operating, Inc., 465 Mass. 191 (Mass. 2013) (three-factor analysis for independent contractor status)
- Casa Loma, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 377 Mass. 231 (Mass. 1979) (specific statute controls when in conflict with general statute)
- Lowery v. Klemm, 446 Mass. 572 (Mass. 2006) (remedial statute interpretation; broad purpose)
- Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444 (Mass. 1934) (misfit of statutory mischief and remedy)
- Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697 (Mass. 2011) (avoid limiting remedial statutes)
- Doe v. Attorney Gen. (No. 1), 425 Mass. 210 (Mass. 1997) (statutory interpretation guidance)
- TBI, Inc. v. Board of Health of N. Andover, 431 Mass. 9 (Mass. 2000) (specific statute controls over general provisions)