Mass High Court Refuses To Enforce General Release of Wage Act Claims


At some point, all employers will be in the unenviable position of wanting or needing to terminate an employee. Given the emotional consequences of being fired, coupled with the difficult job market, many terminated employees will sue or threaten to sue their former employer. Offering a departing employee a separation agreement can be an effective step to minimize exposure to employment claims and the costly litigation that ensues. Under such an agreement, the employer offers the terminated employee something to which he is not otherwise entitled (usually money or benefits). In exchange, the terminated employee agrees not to sue the employer for any claims arising from the employment relationship, such as discrimination, retaliation, misclassification and claims for unpaid compensation. Offering separation pay can be a great way to ease the transition for the departing employee while providing the employer with peace of mind. However, as one Massachusetts employer recently discovered, that peace of mind can be short-lived if the separation agreement is found to be unenforceable.

Although the decision in Crocker et al. v. Townsend Oil, SJC?11059 (12/17/2012), was a bad one for Townsend Oil, it is an early holiday gift to employers, providing helpful guidance about how to draft an enforceable separation agreement. The plaintiffs, Crocker and Barrasso, were home heating oil delivery drivers who the defendant, Townsend Oil, had classified as independent contractors. Townsend Oil terminated the plaintiffs’ independent contractor agreements, essentially firing them. The parties negotiated a separation agreement: the defendant paid the plaintiffs several thousand dollars in exchange for their execution of a general release from any claim that arose from the plaintiffs’ relationship. Thereafter, the plaintiffs learned that several of their former colleagues had successfully sued Townsend Oil for misclassifying them as independent contractors, and had recovered under the Massachusetts Wage Act. Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs had signed general releases, they subsequently filed Wage Act complaints against Townsend for unpaid wages and overtime.

Townsend moved to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiffs had executed a broad release of claims that precluded them from recovering under the Wage Act. For their part, the plaintiffs argued that the general release was unenforceable because the Wage Act prohibits “special contracts” that circumvent the Act’s requirement that employees be paid what they are owed and on time. That, the plaintiffs argued, is what the separation agreement amounted to.

The SJC’s “Balanced” Ruling

The SJC found middle ground between the polar positions proffered by the plaintiffs and defendant. It ruled that a general release cannot effectively release a Wage Act claim, but also ruled that a retrospective release of Wage Act claims would be enforced if the release: (1) is “plainly worded”; (2) is “understandable to the average individual,” and (3) “specifically refers to the rights and claims under the Wage Act that the employee is waiving.” The SJC found that if these criteria were met, the proper balance is met between ensuring “that employees do not unwittingly waive their rights under the Wage Act,” while preserving the “broad enforceability of releases by establishing a relatively narrow channel through which waiver of Wage Act claims can be accomplished.” Because the separation agreements signed by Crocker and Barrosso did not explicitly include the release of Wage Act claims, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to pursue damages they sustained as a result of the misclassification.


The Crocker case is instructive on several bases. First, a separation agreement only helps an employer to the extent that its release provisions are enforceable. Some claims, particularly common law claims such as breach of contract, can be enforced through a general release. Other claims, primarily ones that derive from a statute, must be specifically released. The take-away here is that employers should not find separation agreements on Google, nor should they borrow or crib separation agreements from friends or colleagues. Employers should contact an employment attorney to assist drafting such agreements.

Second, separation agreements should not be written in “Legalese.” They should be written in plain, simple and clear English. For the most part, use of words and phrases such as heretofore, whence, notwithstanding the statement preceding…and the like have no place in a separation agreement. Despite some perceptions, it is possible to draft an enforceable contract in terms that non-lawyers can understand.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allyson Kurker, Kurker Law | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.