Compliance Stuff

On January 22, 2026, in  Pres v. Sensys Gatso USA, Inc. , a Massachusetts trial court ruled that the Massachusetts Wage Act (the Wage Act) encompasses quarterly bonuses not conditioned on defined contingencies. This decision highlights the importance of Massachusetts employers identifying and addressing explicit conditions or contingencies in employee bonus agreements. The draconian ramifications of failing to abide by the Wage Act include unpaid wages, mandatory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Wage Act The Wage Act does not explicitly define the term “wages.” It provides that wages  include  “any holiday or vacation payments due an employee under an oral or written agreement,” and “commissions when the amount of such commissions, less allowable or authorized deductions, has been definitely determined and has become due and payable.” Massachusetts appellate courts have uniformly concluded that conditional or contingent compensation falls outside the scope of the ...

Last year, the Appellate Division of the Massachusetts District Court held in  Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated —a decision that we addressed in an  article  published on October 28, 2024—that retention bonuses do not constitute “wages” within the meaning of the Massachusetts Wage Act. On October 22, 2025, in a significant win for employers, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a decision  affirming  the Appellate Division’s holding, thus confirming that retention bonuses are not subject to the Wage Act and its penalty provisions requiring treble damages and attorneys’ fees for violations. Quick Hits On October 22, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that a retention bonus is not a “wage” for purposes of the Massachusetts Wage Act, and that such bonuses are instead a form of additional, contingent compensation outside the ambit of the Wage Act. The court reasoned that the purpose of a retention agreement is to benefit the empl...