Summary of August 2025 Labor Law Updates for Boston, Massachusetts
Here is your monthly roundup of Massachusetts labor & employment law developments for August 2025, aimed at employees, HR professionals, and compliance leaders. This summary (by HKM Employment Attorneys) covers recent court rulings, interpretations of statutes like the Wage Act, and what these mean for the state’s workplaces.
August 2025 saw several Massachusetts court rulings clarifying when incentive and commission payments qualify as “wages” under the Wage Act — particularly emphasizing that contingent or future commissions often do not meet the standard of “due and payable.” Employers should review how compensation packages are structured, ensure clarity in incentive plan terms, and prepare for the upcoming enforcement of the salary transparency law. Employees should know what claims are likely to survive early motions and what evidence tends to make a difference.
Rivard v. NICE Systems, Inc. — Summary Judgment, Wage Act & Incentive Payments
Date: August 20, 2025
Summary:
Christine Rivard, a former employee of NICE Systems, claimed she was owed incentive payments (commissions or bonuses) under a corporate incentive plan after resigning. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that because Rivard resigned, the “Unearned Incentives” had not become “due and payable,” so they are not wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act.
Implications:
Employers may avoid Wage Act liability for incentive/commission payments that remain contingent (i.e., not yet due or payable) if an employee resigns before those conditions are fulfilled. Employees should carefully review the terms of incentive plans: when incentive payments vest, what conditions are required, etc. This decision underscores the importance of drafting incentive plans with clear definitions of when “due and payable” triggers occur.
Noreke v. Gideon Taylor Consulting, LLC — Commission Definition Under the Wage Act
Date: August 14, 2025
Summary:
Holger Noreke claimed under the Massachusetts Wage Act for what was labeled “commission” compensation from Gideon Taylor Consulting. The employer sought (and won) summary judgment, arguing the compensation was tied not to individual revenue‐generating efforts but to the profitability of a division; such payments are not commissions under the Wage Act even if “arithmetically determinable.” The court agreed.
Implications:
The label “commission” does not automatically bring a payment under the Wage Act’s protections. The substance matters: payments linked to overall profit (especially division or corporate profits) may be excluded.
Employers should be aware that non‐individual performance‐based profit sharing may not qualify as commissions. For employees, asserting a Wage Act claim for compensation labeled commission will require proving that the earnings are tied directly to their performance (or otherwise meet the statute’s definition).
Ford v. Vacationeer, LLC — Prospective Commissions Not “Wages” When Contingent
Date: Reported August 12, 2025 (for Superior Court decision dated July)
Summary:
A travel planner (plaintiff) sued under the Wage Act, claiming she was owed future commissions for trips she booked but had not yet occurred or been completed as of her termination. The court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that prospective future commissions are not wages under the Wage Act if they are contingent (e.g., trips could be cancelled). Only commissions from completed, non‐cancellable work as of the employment end date are “due and payable.”
Implications:
Similar to the other decisions: contingent commissions tied to future events are not enforceable under the Wage Act once an employment relationship ends, unless they have become due. Employers should clearly define in agreements what commissions are earned vs. what is conditional, especially for trips/orders that are cancellable or subject to conditions. Employees should track and document which commissions are earned before resignation or termination.
Allen v. Fuller et al. — Wage Act, Equal Rights Act & Summary Judgment Motions
Date: August 27, 2025
Summary:
Elizabeth Allen sued defendants including XVSOUTH, LLC, under multiple claims: the Massachusetts Wage Act; the Minimum Fair Wage Law; the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (MERA); among others. The court examined a motion for summary judgment: The Wage Act and Minimum Fair Wage Law claims had enough evidence to survive summary judgment. But the discrimination and retaliation claims under the Equal Rights Act did not; those were allowed to be dismissed at this stage.
Implications:
Wage and wage law claims (unpaid wages, underpayment) may be easier to press through summary judgment than discrimination/retaliation claims, depending on the evidence. Employers must ensure wage payments, accounting, and payroll practices are defensible and well-documented. For discrimination/retaliation claims, it’s crucial for plaintiffs to present specific evidence (not just general allegations) to survive early dismissals.
Conclusion: Looking Back on Massachusetts Labor Law Updates from August 2025
With Massachusetts courts tightening standards around discrimination, hostile work environments, and breach of contract, it’s more important than ever to have local legal support. At HKM Employment Attorneys in Boston, we bring focused experience representing clients in harassment, wrongful termination, wage disputes, and contract claims, offering clear guidance and zealous representation from filing through resolution . Our Boston team is known for walking clients through sensitive investigations, negotiation, and litigation with compassion and clarity. If recent court decisions hit close to home, reach out to our Boston office to see how we can be your ally in the aftermath.
