212 F. Supp. 3d 246
D. Mass.2016Background
- Marc Scarpaci worked for Lowe’s from 2002 to November 2011, rising to operations manager and then assistant store manager; after promotion he was paid a fixed salary and received no overtime pay.
- Lowe’s payroll credited him with 40 hours per week (80 hours biweekly) though he asserts he often worked more.
- His last day of work was November 15, 2011; final paycheck issued November 18, 2011.
- Scarpaci filed a claim with the Massachusetts Attorney General on October 21, 2013; the AG declined and authorized private suit on November 8, 2013.
- He filed this suit on December 31, 2014 asserting (1) Massachusetts Wage Act (overtime), (2) conversion, (3) breach of contract, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) quantum meruit, and (6) constructive trust.
- Lowe’s moved for summary judgment on all counts; the court granted judgment for Lowe’s in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Wage Act claim (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §§ 148,150) | Scarpaci contends tolling applies because he filed with AG and feared retaliation; seeks equitable tolling | Claim accrued no later than 11/18/2011; three-year limitations expired 12/6/2014 after statutory tolling; action filed 12/31/2014 | Claim time-barred; equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment not shown; summary judgment for Lowe’s |
| Exempt classification / entitlement to overtime (merits of Wage Act claim) | Scarpaci says he worked overtime and should be paid time-and-a-half | Lowe’s says he was properly classified as exempt salaried manager and paid fixed salary and bonuses; no overtime owed | Court did not reach merits because claim was untimely |
| Conversion | Seeks recovery for unpaid wages as conversion | Lowe’s moved to dismiss | Plaintiff’s counsel conceded; claim dismissed |
| Breach of contract | Seeks contract-based overtime (time-and-a-half) | No evidence of any contractual term promising overtime pay to managers | No evidence of contract term; summary judgment for Lowe’s |
| Unjust enrichment / Quantum meruit | Argues equitable recovery for uncompensated work | Existence of an employment contract provides adequate legal remedy; unjust enrichment/quantum meruit unavailable | Claims barred because an employment contract existed; summary judgment for Lowe’s |
| Constructive trust | Pleads constructive trust dependent on success of other claims | If underlying claims fail, constructive trust fails | Dismissed as dependent on Counts One–Five which were dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir.) (summary judgment role in piercing pleadings)
- Coll v. PB Diagnostic Sys., 50 F.3d 1115 (1st Cir.) (burden where moving party shows absence of genuine issue)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court) (nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence of genuine issue)
- Manning v. Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.) (informal employment contract can arise from hiring)
- Boswell v. Zephyr Lines, Inc., 414 Mass. 241 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court) (quantum meruit in presence/absence of valid contract)
- Pagliarini v. Iannaco, 440 Mass. 1032 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court) (equitable tolling/estoppel principles)