Where a plaintiff employee entered into an agreement with the defendant company under which he would receive two retention bonus payments if he remained with the company until fixed dates and remained in good performance standing without any reduction in his work schedule, those retention bonus payments are not “wages” for purposes of the Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, §148, as they are a form of additional, contingent compensation outside the ambit of that statute.
Accordingly, a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s Wage Act claim is affirmed.
“The plaintiff entered into an agreement with his employer, Syncsort Incorporated (Syncsort or company), whereby he would receive two retention bonus payments if he remained with the company until fixed dates and remained in good performance standing without any reduction in his work schedule. The question in this case is whether those retention bonus payments are ‘wages’ for purposes of the Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, §148. We conclude that they are not; instead, they are a form of additional, contingent compensation outside the ambit of the Wage Act. We accordingly affirm the judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the plaintiff’s Wage Act claim. …
“The issue before us is whether the retention bonus payments in this case are ‘wages’ within the meaning of §148 of the Wage Act. …
“The retention bonus payments at issue in this case do not fall within any of the enumerated forms of benefits or compensation that the Legislature has included in...
“This has been one of the most difficult and traumatic periods of my life.” It’s pretty wild how quick a lawyer threatening a lawsuit can bring a person, company, whatever, to heel. And Ian Battri...