Michael A. Camara & Another 1 v. Attorney Gen. & Another.2

• Decision Date: 25 January 2011
• Docket Number: SJC–10693.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Michael A. CAMARA & another 1v.ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.2

458 Mass. 756
941 N.E.2d 1118
160 Lab.Cas. P 35,862

Michael A. CAMARA & another 1
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.2

SJC–10693.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Submitted Nov. 4, 2010.Decided Jan. 25, 2011.

[941 N.E.2d 1119]

Karla E. Zarbo, Assistant Attorney General (Anita Maietta, Assistant Attorney General, with her) for the Attorney General.Thomas E. Pontes, Raynham, for the plaintiffs.Shannon Liss–Riordan, Ian O. Russell, Boston, & Audrey R. Richardson, Roslindale, for Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.Present: SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, BOTSFORD, & GANTS, JJ.BOTSFORD, J.

[458 Mass. 756] In this case we consider whether the written policy of the plaintiff ABC Disposal Service, Inc. (ABC), under [458 Mass. 757] which a worker found by ABC to be at fault in an accident involving company trucks may agree to a deduction from earned wages in lieu of discipline, violates a key provision of the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L. c. 149, § 148 (§ 148).³ In ruling on the plaintiff's appeal from a decision of the division of administrative law appeals (DALA), a judge in the Superior Court concluded that the written policy was consistent with § 148. Giving deference to the Attorney General's reasonable interpretation of the Wage Act, G.L. c. 149, §§ 148 and 150, and in agreement with DALA, we conclude that the statute prohibits wage deductions associated with an employer's unilateral determination of an employee's fault and damages; and that the ABC policy, by withholding employees' wages, contravenes the Wage Act. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.⁴

Background. The facts are not contested.⁵ ABC is a Massachusetts corporation with a usual place of business in New Bedford. The plaintiff, Michael Camara, is its vice-president and qualifies as a statutory employer of ABC's employees within the meaning of the Wage Act. ABC provides curbside collection and disposal of solid waste and recycling for participating households and small businesses. ABC employees driving company trucks have on occasion caused damage to the trucks and to personal property of third parties.

In an effort to promote safety and to decrease careless driving, ABC in recent years established a policy whereby drivers determined to be at fault are given an option of either accepting disciplinary action or entering into an agreement to set off the damages against their wages.⁶ The

[941 N.E.2d 1120]

determination of fault is [458 Mass. 758] made after the ABC safety officer reviews records related to the incident and reports his findings to the safety manager. If the safety manager, in consultation with ABC management, determines the incident was a “preventable accident,” see note 6, supra, she offers the driver a choice of making payment for the damages or accepting discipline. The findings of the safety manager as to whether an accident was preventable and the amount of damages are final and not subject to any appeal process. A driver determined by ABC to be at fault may enter into a written agreement with ABC for the payment of the cost of the damage by way of a setoff against wages due to the employee. Some drivers have chosen to accept disciplinary action instead of paying damages. Of those employees who have agreed to permit a setoff by ABC, the average setoff is fifteen dollars to thirty dollars per week. In no instance has a driver's pay, net of setoffs for driver fault, fallen below minimum wage standards. Between 2003 and 2006, ABC's costs attributable to damage done to vehicles and personal property has been reduced by seventy-eight per cent. ABC attributes this reduction to implementation of this policy.

The fair labor standards division of the Attorney General's office conducted an audit of the deductions made by ABC from June, 2004, through March, 2006. The audit revealed that ABC deducted $21,487.96 from the wages of twenty-seven employees during this time period in accordance with the policy at issue. In February, 2007, the Attorney General issued a civil citation against Camara and ABC for an intentional violation of G.L. c. 149, § 148; the citation required payment of $21,487.96 in restitution and assessed a $9,410 civil penalty. On the plaintiff's timely appeal, an administrative magistrate within DALA issued a decision upholding the Attorney General's citation.

The plaintiff sought review of the DALA decision in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14. After a hearing, [458 Mass. 759] a Superior Court judge (motion judge) granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reversing the DALA decision and invalidating the Attorney General's citation. The Attorney General appealed to the Appeals Court, and we transferred her appeal to this court on our own motion.

Discussion. In the Superior Court, ABC challenged DALA's decision as being based on an error of law. See G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7)( c ). We grant de novo review of questions of law in administrative decisions. Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Attorney Gen., 454 Mass. 63, 65, 907 N.E.2d 635 (2009) ( Electronic Data ), citing Belhumeur v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 432 Mass. 458, 463, 735 N.E.2d 860 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 904, 121 S.Ct. 1227, 149 L.Ed.2d 137 (2001). However, the Attorney General's reasonable interpretation of the Wage Act is entitled to deference. See Electronic Data, supra at 69, 907 N.E.2d 635, quoting Smith v. Winter Place LLC, 447 Mass. 363, 367–368, 851 N.E.2d 417 (2006) (“Insofar as the Attorney General's office is the department charged with enforcing the wage and hour laws, its interpretation of the protections provided thereunder is entitled to substantial deference, at least where it is not inconsistent with the plain language of the statutory provisions”).

[941 N.E.2d 1121]

Section 148 of the Wage Act requires prompt and full payment of wages due. It provides in pertinent part:

“Every person having employees in his service shall pay weekly or bi-weekly each such employee the wages earned by him to within six days of the termination of the pay period during which the wages were earned if employed for five or six days in a calendar week.... No person shall by a special contract with an employee or by any other means exempt himself from this section or from section one hundred and fifty ...” (emphasis added).

G.L. c. 149, § 148. General Laws c. 149, § 150 (§ 150), in turn, authorizes the Attorney General to “make complaint” against any employer who violates § 148 and limits employers' defenses as follows:

“On the trial no defence for failure to pay as required, other than the attachment of such wages by trustee process or a valid assignment thereof or a valid set-off against the same, or the absence of the employee from his regular [458 Mass. 760] place of labor at the time of payment, or an actual tender to such employee at the time of payment of the wages so earned by him, shall be valid” (emphasis added).

G.L. c. 149, § 150.

The Attorney General interprets the “special contract” language in § 148 as generally prohibiting an employer from deducting, or withholding payment of, any earned wages. She argues that this prohibition cannot be overcome by an employee's assent, both because § 148 makes the “special contract” prohibition unconditional and for reasons of public policy. In her view, regardless of an employee's agreement, there can be no deduction of wages unless the employer can demonstrate, in relation to that employee, the existence of a valid attachment, assignment or setoff as described in § 150, ⁷ a condition she claims that the ABC setoff policy does not meet.

We find the Attorney General's interpretation of § 148 to be a reasonable one. It is consistent with the statute's purpose, which is “to protect employees and their right to wages.” Electronic Data, 454 Mass. at 70, 907 N.E.2d 635. See Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n v. Boston, 435 Mass. 718, 720, 761 N.E.2d 479 (2002) (“purpose of the weekly wage law is clear: to prevent the unreasonable detention of wages”). Here, instead of receiving, for example, $400 a week in net pay, an ABC employee would take home only $370 to $385 pursuant to an agreement that applies only to that employee. ⁸ Given the undisputed manner in which the ABC policy operates, we agree with the Attorney General that even if the arrangement is voluntary and assented to,⁹ it still represents

[941 N.E.2d 1122 , 458 Mass. 761]

a “special contract,” in the sense that it contains “peculiar provisions that are not ordinarily found in contracts relating to the same subject matter.” Black's Law Dictionary 373 (9th ed. 2009).¹⁰ This interpretation of the term, as the Attorney General contends, clearly furthers the Wage...