Worker Alleges E-Retailer Violated Massachusetts Wage Act’s Final Paycheck Provision
A former warehouse worker has filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the e-retailer Amazon failed to provide terminated employees’ final paychecks in the time required by the Massachusetts Wage Act. The complaint in Hutton v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 2685-CV-01525 (Sup. Ct. of Worcester County, Mass., filed October 7, 2026), alleges that Amazon did not pay earned wages and unused vacation days on the date of discharge. The plaintiff, a former packer terminated in June 2026, claims that Amazon only paid him his final paycheck on his next regular payday, several days after the termination date. The filing follows a pattern of similar litigation brought against Massachusetts employers, including Elevance Health and Stop & Shop.
Under the Massachusetts Wage Act, M.G.L. c. 149, § 148, “[a]ny employee leaving his employment shall be paid in full the following regular pay day…and any employee discharged from such employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge” (Emphasis added). In Hutton, and other actions based on delayed payment to terminated employees, the plaintiffs allege a common practice by the employer that fails to pay out the discharged employee by the time required by the statute. According to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, even a judgment based upon a delay in payment entitles the plaintiff to mandatory treble damages, plus attorney’s fees, court costs and interest. See Reuter v. City of Methuen, 489 Mass. 465 (2022).
In Reuter, the Court found that the remedy for any delay in payment is “explicit” under the statute and “expressly focused on trebling the lost wages and benefits.” Id., at 489 Mass. at 471. The Court reasoned that the Massachusetts legislature recognized the difference in treatment between involuntary discharges and other separations of employment, allowing for a grace period for payments to employees that depart on their own terms. By contrast, the discharged employee has no control over the timing of that termination, and accordingly, the employer must be prepared “to pay him or her in full” when that individual is terminated.
As alleged in the Hutton complaint, Amazon failed to maintain procedures that ensured that terminated workers in Massachusetts obtained final wages and accrued vacation days on the date of discharge. According to the plaintiff, Amazon’s payroll policies caused systemic late payments in violation of the Wage Act. The plaintiff seeks certification under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23 of a class of “all Massachusetts employees of [Amazon] who were involuntarily terminated during the three (3) years preceding the lawsuit and through the date of judgment.” The plaintiff estimated that more than 100 employees make up the putative class.
This case under the Massachusetts Wage Act highlights a growing trend in wage and hour litigation focusing on state law provisions and the associated penalties that often accompany state law provisions. The state law wage and hour provisions often provide greater protections and penalties beyond the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result, the wage and hour compliance challenges for national employers often entail a careful review of the various provisions of state and local wage laws.
Under the Massachusetts Wage Act, M.G.L. c. 149, § 148, “[a]ny employee leaving his employment shall be paid in full the following regular pay day…and any employee discharged from such employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge” (Emphasis added). In Hutton, and other actions based on delayed payment to terminated employees, the plaintiffs allege a common practice by the employer that fails to pay out the discharged employee by the time required by the statute. According to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, even a judgment based upon a delay in payment entitles the plaintiff to mandatory treble damages, plus attorney’s fees, court costs and interest. See Reuter v. City of Methuen, 489 Mass. 465 (2022).
In Reuter, the Court found that the remedy for any delay in payment is “explicit” under the statute and “expressly focused on trebling the lost wages and benefits.” Id., at 489 Mass. at 471. The Court reasoned that the Massachusetts legislature recognized the difference in treatment between involuntary discharges and other separations of employment, allowing for a grace period for payments to employees that depart on their own terms. By contrast, the discharged employee has no control over the timing of that termination, and accordingly, the employer must be prepared “to pay him or her in full” when that individual is terminated.
As alleged in the Hutton complaint, Amazon failed to maintain procedures that ensured that terminated workers in Massachusetts obtained final wages and accrued vacation days on the date of discharge. According to the plaintiff, Amazon’s payroll policies caused systemic late payments in violation of the Wage Act. The plaintiff seeks certification under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23 of a class of “all Massachusetts employees of [Amazon] who were involuntarily terminated during the three (3) years preceding the lawsuit and through the date of judgment.” The plaintiff estimated that more than 100 employees make up the putative class.
This case under the Massachusetts Wage Act highlights a growing trend in wage and hour litigation focusing on state law provisions and the associated penalties that often accompany state law provisions. The state law wage and hour provisions often provide greater protections and penalties beyond the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result, the wage and hour compliance challenges for national employers often entail a careful review of the various provisions of state and local wage laws.
