Mui v. Massachusetts Port Authority, 89 N.E.3d 460

Mui was a longtime Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) employee who applied for retirement while disciplinary proceedings were pending; Massport subsequently discharged him but an arbitrator later ruled he had retired before the discharge.
Massport's policy pays departing employees a percentage of accrued, unused sick time upon separation, but denies that payment to employees terminated for cause and requires two years' service for eligibility.
Because of the pending disciplinary/grievance process, Massport delayed paying Mui the sick-pay amount until after the arbitrator ruled; payment was made more than a year after his effective retirement date.
Mui sued under the Massachusetts Wage Act (G. L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150), arguing sick-pay is a "wage" and so was required to be paid by the Act's time limits; Superior Court granted judgment on the pleadings for Mui.
The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed de novo whether the Wage Act's definition of "wages" includes accrued, unused sick-time payments and considered statutory text, precedent, and practical implications for employers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether accrued, unused sick-time payments (Massport's sick pay) are "wages" under the Massachusetts Wage Act	Mui: Sick-pay is compensation for work and thus qualifies as "wages" under the Act; late payment violates the Act's timing provisions	Massport: Sick-pay is a contingent, conditional payment (like a bonus) not enumerated in §148; the Act expressly mentions vacation and holiday pay and commissions, but not sick pay	Held: Sick-pay of this type is not a "wage" under the Wage Act; judgment for Mui vacated and Massport's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be allowed

Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Attorney Gen., 454 Mass. 63 (2009) (Wage Act's purpose is to protect employees' right to wages)
Weems v. Citigroup, Inc., 453 Mass. 147 (2009) (discretionary/contingent bonuses not wages under the Wage Act)
Dartt v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. (Mass.), 427 Mass. 1 (1998) (courts will not add language to a statute the Legislature omitted)
Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Boston, 435 Mass. 718 (2002) (tax-exempt deferred compensation not wages under the Act)
Prozinski v. Northeast Real Estate Servs., LLC, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 599 (2003) (severance pay contingent on separation circumstances not wages)
Water Dep't of Fairhaven v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 455 Mass. 740 (2010) (statutory interpretation begins with the statute's plain language)
Providence & Worcester R.R. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 453 Mass. 135 (2009) (same)
Commonwealth v. Martin, 476 Mass. 72 (2016) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Commonwealth v. Morgan, 476 Mass. 768 (2017) (avoid statutory constructions that produce absurd results)
Commonwealth v. Traylor, 472 Mass. 260 (2015) (penal statutes construed strictly)