Chapoteau v. Bella Sante, Inc.
| Docket Number | 22-P-341 |
| Decision Date | 08 September 2023 |
| Parties | DANIEL CHAPOTEAU[1] & another [2] v. BELLA SANTE, INC., & others. [3] |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Heard: December 9, 2022.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 22, 2020.
The case was heard by Catherine H. Ham, J., on a motion for summary judgment.
Raven Moeslinger for the plaintiffs.
David H. Rich for the defendants.
Present: Wolohojian, Henry, & Hershfang, JJ.
The "Sunday closing laws," "Blue Laws," or "Common Day of Rest Law[s]," G. L. c. 136 §§ 1-11,[4] prohibit business activities on Sundays but provide for numerous exemptions. One of those exemptions G. L. c. 136, § 6 (50), permits the retail sale of goods. Prior to January 1, 2023, G. L. c. 136, § 6 (50), as amended through St. 2018, c. 121, §§ 5-8, required certain employers that sold goods at retail to pay employees premium pay for hours worked on Sunday (Sunday pay) .[5] This case presents the question whether an employer who principally provided beauty and massage therapy services, which are exempted or permitted activities that did not require Sunday pay, see G. L. c. 136, § 6 (54), (54 1/2), may still have been required to pay Sunday pay to employees engaged in ancillary retail sales before that requirement was phased out. Because the statutory exemptions for beauty and massage therapy services do not allow the retail sale of goods on Sunday, and because the employer was a "store or shop" as used in § 6 (50), which authorized the retail sale of goods subject to the Sunday pay requirement, we vacate the order allowing summary judgment in favor of the employer.
Background.[6]
Plaintiffs Daniel Chapoteau and Victoria Perez commenced a putative class action suit against the defendants, Bella Sante, Inc., Bella Sante Wellesley, LLC, Tiffany Amorosino, Cara M. Finnegan (collectively, Bella Sante or employer), claiming that Bella Sante failed to pay Sunday pay to them and other employees as required by G. L. c. 136, § 6 (50), as amended through St. 2018, c. 121, §§ 5-8. Each of Bella Sante's three locations[7] employs massage therapists, spa concierges, nail technicians, and estheticians; the Wellesley location also employs hair stylists. All locations sell beauty products, including on Sundays. These beauty products include items such as creams, cleansers, lotions, body scrubs, toners, soaps, serums, moisturizers, masks, gels, lip gloss, acne treatments, and nail polish.
The majority of Bella Sante's revenue is derived from fees paid for services. At each location, only about one percent of the square footage is dedicated to displays for the retail sale of beauty products. Nonetheless, a significant portion of Bella Sante's revenue comes from product sales. From 2017 through 2019, approximately twenty percent of Bella Sante's revenue was generated from product sales. In total, the three spas collectively made over $2.4 million in product sales during that time period, including sales on Sundays.
Bella Sante's massage therapists, nail technicians, estheticians, and hair stylists earn the majority of their income through services but are able to earn additional income through commissions on their retail sales of beauty products. Spa concierges are paid an hourly wage, do not receive commissions on product sales, and do not have sales targets, although Bella Sante requires concierges to encourage customers to purchase products. While some of the employees have sales targets, no employee has been terminated for failing to meet those goals, although one spa concierge was verbally reprimanded.
Neither of the named plaintiffs, nor any of the other employees, was paid Sunday pay for hours worked on Sundays.
Chapoteau worked at the Wellesley location from 2014 until January 2020 as a licensed massage therapist. He was paid on commission, based nearly exclusively on the value of massage therapy sessions he performed.[8] For any product sales, of which Chapoteau made very few, he was paid on commission.[9] Perez worked as a spa concierge at the Boston location. She was paid an hourly wage and did not receive any commissions on product sales.
In January 2020, Chapoteau and Perez commenced this putative class action against Bella Sante, alleging that because Bella Sante sold beauty products at retail on Sundays, it was required to pay employees Sunday pay, and that its failure to do so violated G. L. c. 136, § 6 (50), as amended through St. 2018, c. 121, §§ 5-8. They sought relief for the nonpayment of the Sunday pay pursuant to the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150. Bella Sante moved for summary judgment, arguing that because it provides beauty and massage therapy services, which are separately exempt business activities under G. L. c. 136, § 6 (54), (54 1/2), it was not required to pay employees Sunday pay. The motion judge agreed with Bella Sante and granted it summary judgment. This appeal followed.
Discussion.
"We review the allowance of a motion for summary judgment de novo." Genworth Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Ins., 95 Mass.App.Ct. 392, 394 (2019), citing Federal Nat'1 Mtge. Ass'n v. Hendricks, 463 Mass. 635, 637 (2012). "In so doing, we consider 'whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Genworth Life Ins. Co., supra, quoting Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991).
Our analysis begins with an examination of the actual words of the common day of rest law and the fundamental purpose of the statutory scheme. "A fundamental tenet of statutory interpretation is that statutory language should be given effect consistent with its plain meaning and in light of the aim of the Legislature unless to do so would achieve an illogical result." Marengi v. 6 Forest Rd. LLC, 491 Mass. 19, 24-25 (2022), quoting Sullivan v. Brookline, 435 Mass. 353, 360 (2001) .
The "general philosophy" of the common day of rest law "is to begin with a general prohibition of all work, labor and amusements on Sunday and then to engraft on that general prohibition the exemptions which the Legislature deems required by necessity or the general purpose of the statute." Zayre Corp. v. Attorney Gen., 372 Mass. 423, 429 (1977). See G. L. c. 136, § 5. Any business that is open on Sunday is subject to criminal prosecution[10] and a fine,[11] unless the activity falls within at least one of more than fifty exemptions, see G. L. c. 136, § 6 () .
Three of the exemptions under § 6 are at issue here. Section 6 (54) permits "[t]he cutting and styling of hair, manicuring, and the furnishing of related cosmetological and beauty services" (beauty services), and § 6 (54 1/2) permits "[t]he performance of massage therapy services by a massage therapist licensed pursuant to [G. L. c. 112, § 228]" (massage therapy services). In addition, § 6 (50) permits "[t]he keeping open of a store or shop and the sale at retail of goods therein, . . . and the performance of labor, business, and work directly connected therewith on Sunday" (retail sale of goods).
The exemptions for beauty and massage therapy services have never required Sunday pay. By contrast, during the relevant time period, the exemption for the retail sale of goods required "[a]ny store or shop which qualifies for exemption under this clause . . . and which employs more than a total of seven persons, including the proprietor, on Sunday or any day throughout the week," to pay Sunday pay to employees "engaged in the work performed on Sunday pursuant to the provisions of this clause . . . ." G. L. c. 136, § 6 (50), as amended through St. 2018, c. 121, §§ 5-8.
For many years the Sunday pay rate was one and one-half times an employee's regular hourly rate, similar to overtime. Starting in 2019, the Sunday pay rate was reduced by one-tenth of one percent as part of legislation that increased the minimum wage over a period of years, until January 1, 2023, when the Sunday pay rate was phased out entirely. See St. 2018, c. 121, § 5, effective Jan. 1, 2019; St. 2018, c. 121, § 6, effective Jan. 1, 2020; St. 2018, c. 121, § 7, effective Jan. 1, 2021; St. 2018, c. 121, § 8, effective Jan. 1, 2022; St. 2018, c. 121, § 9, effective Jan. 1, 2023. Thus, businesses that sold goods at retail on Sunday under the § 6 (50) exemption were subject to the Sunday pay requirement through December 31, 2022, which encompasses the entirety of the alleged nonpayment of the plaintiffs.
In arguing that no Sunday pay was required, the employer relies on exemptions that allow businesses to offer beauty and massage therapy services on Sunday. See G. L. c. 136, § 6 (54), (54 1/2). These exemptions allow certain types of business activities to be performed. Nothing in either exemption permits the retail sale of goods. An employer that provides both exempted and nonexempted services does not thereby exempt the latter; "a store that is lawfully open for some kinds of business may nonetheless be prosecuted for being open for business in violation of the act." Commonwealth v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 404 Mass. 476, 479 (1989). In other words, (Quotation omitted.) Id. at 478. See Ralph's Market, Inc. v. Beverly, 353 Mass. 588, 590 (1968) ().
Massachusetts cases demonstrate application of the statute. In Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 404 Mass. at 477, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial