On October 22, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) issued an important decision clarifying the distinction between “wages” which are subject to the protections of the Massachusetts Wage Act and other forms of compensation such as bonuses. In Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated, et al., the former employee claimed that the employer violated the Wage Act by paying the second half of his retention bonus eight days after his date of termination. Per the Wage Act, all wages must be paid to an involuntarily terminated employee on the date of termination. The question before the court, therefore, was whether the retention bonus was a “wage” or another form of compensation.
The SJC held such bonuses were not “wages” subject to the protections of the Wage Act. Instead, the Court found the bonus to be “a form of additional, contingent compensation outside the ambit of the Wage Act.” Importantly, the Court distinguished retention bonuses from commissions – the only contingent form of compensation expressly recognized in the Act as subject to its protections. Commissions are “wages” for purposes of the Act when they are definitely determined and due and payable to the employee. The Court declined to extend the definition of “wages” to another type of contingent payment, such as retention bonuses.
In her concurrence, Chief Justice Budd emphasized that the retention bonus was “offered in addition to the plaintiff’s regular pay, in exchange for something more than his...
[OSEN=Jang Woo-young Reporter] Amid repeated denials from actor Park Si-hoo’s side regarding allegations of facilitating an affair, a close associate also emphasized that the claims are “baseless”...