Summary of September 2025 Labor Law Updates for Boston, Massachusetts
This monthly legal update is aimed at HR professionals, employers, and employees in Massachusetts. It highlights key court rulings, legislative proposals, and regulatory developments in labor and employment law for September 2025.
September 2025 in Massachusetts saw notable developments in the interplay between contract restrictions (noncompetition/non-solicitation), wage law litigation and immunity, collective bargaining boundaries, and legislative proposals for expanded enforcement. Employers and HR professionals should audit their restrictive covenant agreements, wage and payroll structures, and union relationship protocols now in light of these shifts. If you have questions about how any of these updates affect your workplace, or would like tailored compliance guidance, HKM Employment Attorneys Boston is ready to assist you — feel free to reach out via our website at hkm.com.
Forfeiture Clauses Triggered by Non-Solicitation Breaches — Court Ruling / Interpretation of Noncompetition Act
Date: September 22, 2025
Summary:
In a recent article, commentators describe a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarifying that a forfeiture clause tied to breach of a non-solicitation covenant does not fall under the special restrictions of the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act. Because the Act expressly excludes non-solicitation covenants, such forfeiture clauses remain enforceable under contract law, and are not automatically invalidated under the statute.
This means that even though noncompetition agreements are constrained by statute (e.g. geographic, duration, consideration, etc.), an employer may still validly condition separation payments (or require repayment) if an employee violates a non-solicitation covenant, so long as the covenant is not characterized as a “noncompetition” covenant under the Act.
Implications:
Employers should carefully review separation, transition, and incentive agreements to ensure proper delineation between noncompetition vs. non-solicitation covenants and to structure forfeiture terms. Employees facing claims for repayment or forfeiture should evaluate whether their non-solicitation clause is being improperly recharacterized as a noncompetition covenant. This decision underscores that even under the noncompetition statute, non-solicitation restrictions remain a viable tool with associated remedies.
Curtin-Wilding v. Trustees of Boston University — Wage Act Immunity for Nonprofits
Date: September 29, 2025
Summary:
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision in Curtin-Wilding v. Trustees of Boston University favorable to nonprofit higher education and healthcare employers. The court held that these nonprofit employers could invoke statutory immunity from certain claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act in cases involving noncompliant monthly wage payments.
Under Massachusetts law, most employees must be paid at least weekly or biweekly (though exempt employees may opt for semimonthly or monthly pay). The Wage Act also mandates strict timing of wage payments and imposes mandatory penalties for violations. The court’s decision provides relief to certain nonprofits from such penalties in limited circumstances.
Implications:
Nonprofit institutions, particularly in sectors of higher education and healthcare, should assess their wage payment practices to confirm whether this immunity may apply. Other employers should consider whether analogous arguments are available (though the decision is specific to nonprofit entities). Employees or their counsel will need to scrutinize whether an employer qualifies for this immunity in litigated wage claims.
Proposed “Private Attorney General Act” for Wage-Hour Claims — Legislative Development
Date: September 8, 2025
Summary:
A proposed bill (H.1916) was filed by Representative Tram T. Nguyen, aiming to create a private right of action for employees to sue, on behalf of themselves, co-workers, and the Commonwealth, for wage and hour violations (i.e., modeled on California’s PAGA). Several state senators have introduced a companion bill, S.1300.
If passed, this would expand employees’ enforcement tools beyond the existing mechanisms (such as enforcement via the Attorney General) and potentially increase exposure for employers, particularly for technical or nonintentional wage violations.
Implications:
Employers should monitor the trajectory of H.1916 and S.1300, as adoption would mark a significant shift in Massachusetts wage enforcement. Proactive compliance with wage, overtime, and recordkeeping obligations becomes even more critical if employees could initiate classwide or collective claims under this statute. Employees and labor advocates may view this as a tool to strengthen enforcement of wage laws, especially for lower-wage workers.
Andover Education Association v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board — Collective Bargaining / Duty to Bargain
Date: September 9, 2025
Summary:
In Andover Education Association v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Appeals Court, 24-P-465), the court resolved a dispute about union conduct after a collective bargaining negotiation. The union had proposed a one-time payment of $800 to instructional assistants; the parties did not include it in the CBA. After the town meeting approved the payment via warrant article, the union requested the school committee make payments. The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board found that this conduct by the union violated its duty to bargain in good faith. The union appealed, also raising First Amendment arguments, but the Appeals Court affirmed the Board’s decision.
The decision emphasizes that a union must not unilaterally exploit external mechanisms (like warrant articles) to pressure the employer after the end of negotiations, if that bypasses the collective bargaining process.
Implications:
Public sector unions and school districts must be cautious about efforts to secure post-negotiation benefits via town meetings or external political maneuvers — these may trigger unfair labor practice liability. This case highlights the limits on union political or legislative actions in the context of ongoing collective bargaining obligations. Employers (especially public sector) should revisit policies or agreements that allow or anticipate such external actions to ensure they do not violate duty to bargain.
Conclusion: Looking Back on Massachusetts Labor Law Updates from September 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.
