Boston Lawyer BlogSJC protects low-wage earners’ ability to sue for unpaid wages
Last month, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision protecting the rights of low-wage workers to file lawsuits against their employer for unpaid wages. The decision concerned “anti-SLAPP” motions, which employees may file if, after they sue their employer, their employer countersues them solely to discourage the employee from proceeding with their original lawsuit. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court clarified how judges are required to calculate attorney’s fees for successful appeals of anti-SLAPP claims by employees that are initially rejected by the trial court, and addressed whether judges can reduce an attorney’s fee award based on the amount of unpaid wages being sought.
Background
In Hidalgo v. Watch City Construction Corp., the plaintiff, Andres Hidalgo, who worked as a laborer, sued his employer for violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and related claims. Mr. Hidalgo alleged that he had only been paid for two out of the six weeks he worked and sought $3,738.67 in lost wages. Due to the Wage Act’s treble damages provision, these unpaid wages would amount to $11,216.01 in damages. Watch City denied Mr. Hidalgo’s allegations and brought counterclaims for, among other things, malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Mr. Hidalgo brought a special motion to dismiss Watch City’s counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the claims were brought solely to discourage him from continuing with his lawsuit. After a judge denied Mr. Hidalgo’s motion to dismiss, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the decision and ordered the dismissal of Watch City’s counterclaims.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hidalgo filed a petition for appellate attorney’s fees and costs associated with his anti-SLAPP claim appeal. Mr. Hidalgo used the lodestar method to calculate the fees, which is a widely accepted formula that determines the total amount of attorney’s fees by determining the reasonable number of hours spent on a case and a reasonable hourly rate. In reaching both numbers, Mr. Hidalgo submitted his attorneys’ time logs and affidavits from his attorneys relating to the hours spent on the anti-SLAPP appeal, and affidavits from two other Massachusetts employment attorneys testifying that his attorneys’ hourly rates were “market rates.” The resulting sum calculated by Mr. Hidalgo was $67,361.25 in attorney’s fees. The Appeals Court concluded that both the number of hours spent and hourly rates were reasonable, but determined that the value of Mr. Hidalgo’s Wage Act claim was too low to warrant the attorney’s fees amount. As a result, the Appeals Court panel awarded him $33,680.65 in attorney’s fees – one-half of what he had requested.
SJC Decision
The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the Appeals Court, noting that the monetary value of an underlying claim can indeed be a factor in determining whether the number of hours worked by an attorney and the attorney’s rate were reasonable. However, once a judge determines that the number of hours and hourly rate are reasonable, the attorney’s fee award itself is reasonable; a claim’s monetary value cannot be used as a basis for reducing a reasonable attorney’s fee award for anti-SLAPP work.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court emphasized that while unpaid wage cases often do not provide significant monetary recovery, the harm caused by the nonpayment of wages to low-wage workers is significant. Because of the significance of this harm, it is critical that lawyers are incentivized to take on unpaid wage cases and that employers are disincentivized from committing Wage Act violations by being forced to pay the full amount of reasonably calculated attorney’s fees, regardless of the value of wages that were unpaid.
If your employer is withholding your wages, or you have another workplace legal concern, contact our employment attorneys at (617) 742-6020.
* Our blogs are written by the firm’s attorneys, without the use of AI or ghostwriters
