Employee gets green light in suit over regularly ‘late’ pay

An employee can proceed with a putative class action alleging his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him within six days of the end of the company’s pay period, even though the statute allows payment within seven days for some categories of workers, a U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts has ruled in an issue of first impression.

The state wage act provides five-, six- and seven-day payment deadlines, measured from the end of the “pay period.” The applicable deadline depends on various factors, including the number of days a worker is “employed” within the work week.

However, a 1960 amendment to the statute provides “in no event shall wages remain unpaid by an employer for more than six days from the termination of the pay period in which such wages were earned by the employee.”

In this case, Volkan Turgut filed a putative class action against his employer. According to the plaintiff, the defendant violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him within six days after the termination of the pay period. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing it complied with the statute by making payment within seven days.

Judge Angel Kelley found the six-day deadline applied to the plaintiff’s claims.

“Considering the legislative history, guidance from past and current attorneys general, and a reading of the statute as a whole, it appears to the Court that the [seven-day] provision applies only to hourly workers who work all seven days,” Kelley wrote. “It is not clear whether Plaintiff is an hourly or salaried employee. Either way, Defendant’s motion must be denied since the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff works only five days, requiring payment to be made within six days under the Wage Act.”

The judge recognized that some might question whether a difference of one day matters.

“Perhaps to many, the answer is no,” Kelley wrote. “However, to some, the difference could mean a day earlier parents can purchase groceries; or a student’s ability to pay rent on time; or the faster a patient can pay for a medical procedure. This Court answers the question posed to it in the affirmative: a day matters for the many people in this Commonwealth who live paycheck to paycheck.”

The 15-page decision is Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc.