In Nunez v. Syncsort, Docket #: 23-ADCV-63NO (Appellate Div. 2024) the plaintiff sued Syncsort Incorporated (“Company”) for failing to pay a retention bonus in a timely manner, alleging a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L. c. 149, § 148.
Nunez was hired as Senior Director of Finance by Precisely in May 2020. He was eligible for a $15,000 retention bonus, to be paid in two installments, contingent on remaining employed and in good standing. Nunez received the first $7,500 installment in November 2020 but was terminated in February 2021 due to workforce reduction, before receiving the second installment. The Company paid the second installment a day after Nunez filed his complaint. The trial court ruled that the retention bonus did not qualify as “wages” under the Massachusetts Wage Act, denying Nunez’s claim. On appeal, the court affirmed that the retention bonus, being contingent on conditions, did not fall under the definition of “wages” as defined by the Wage Act. This case underscores that compensation that is contingent in nature is not considered wages under the Wage Act.
Comments