Mass. court shields fees in wage cases
What happened
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled this week that courts may not arbitrarily cut attorneys’ fees in Wage Act cases — a win advocates say strengthens remedies for low‑wage workers facing retaliation. The decision is being read as a persuasive precedent for New England advocates pushing tougher enforcement against wage theft. (masslawyersweekly.com)
Why it matters
The Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in Hidalgo v. Watch City Construction Corp., SJC‑13787, on March 25, 2026, reversing an Appeals Court decision that had reduced an appellate attorney‑fee award. (mass.gov)) Plaintiff Andres Hidalgo filed a six‑count action in the Waltham District Court on March 17, 2021, alleging Watch City Construction failed to pay him for four weeks of work under the Massachusetts Wage Act. (law.justia.com)) Hidalgo’s attorneys sought $67,361.25 in appellate fees for anti‑SLAPP work; the Appeals Court halved that award even after finding hours and rates reasonable, and the SJC concluded using the low dollar value of the Wage Act claim to cut fees was an abuse of discretion. (silverlakelegal.com)) The SJC reaffirmed use of the lodestar method—reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable rates—when awarding fees under G.L. c. 231, §59H, and described anti‑SLAPP issues in this litigation as “notoriously difficult.” (mass.gov)) The Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association filed an amici brief in the appeal, lead counsel for Hidalgo included David E. Belfort (with Robert S. Mantell assisting), and Elliott M. Loew represented Watch City. (mass.gov)) The ruling arrives while Beacon Hill considers tougher wage‑theft enforcement proposals, including bills like S.1300/H.1916 that would expand private enforcement mechanisms for wage claims. (trackbill.com))
Key numbers
- Watch City Construction Corp., SJC‑13787, on March 25, 2026, reversing an Appeals Court decision that had reduced an appellate attorney‑fee award.
- (mass.gov)) Plaintiff Andres Hidalgo filed a six‑count action in the Waltham District Court on March 17, 2021, alleging Watch City Construction failed to pay him for four weeks of work under the Massachusetts Wage Act.
- 231, §59H, and described anti‑SLAPP issues in this litigation as “notoriously difficult.” (mass.gov)) The Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association filed an amici brief in the appeal, lead counsel for Hidalgo included David E.
- (mass.gov)) The ruling arrives while Beacon Hill considers tougher wage‑theft enforcement proposals, including bills like S.1300/H.1916 that would expand private enforcement mechanisms for wage claims.
What happens next
- (mass.gov)) The ruling arrives while Beacon Hill considers tougher wage‑theft enforcement proposals, including bills like S.1300/H.1916 that would expand private enforcement mechanisms for wage claims.
- (trackbill.com)) The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled this week that courts may not arbitrarily cut attorneys’ fees in Wage Act cases — a win advocates say strengthens remedies for low‑wage workers facing retaliation.
Quick answers
What happened in Mass. court shields fees in wage cases?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled this week that courts may not arbitrarily cut attorneys’ fees in Wage Act cases — a win advocates say strengthens remedies for low‑wage workers facing retaliation. The decision is being read as a persuasive precedent for New England advocates pushing tougher enforcement against wage theft. (masslawyersweekly.com)
Why does Mass. court shields fees in wage cases matter?
The Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in Hidalgo v. Watch City Construction Corp., SJC‑13787, on March 25, 2026, reversing an Appeals Court decision that had reduced an appellate attorney‑fee award. (mass.gov)) Plaintiff Andres Hidalgo filed a six‑count action in the Waltham District Court on March 17, 2021, alleging Watch City Construction failed to pay him for four weeks of work under the Massachusetts Wage Act. (law.justia.com)) Hidalgo’s attorneys sought $67,361.25 in appellate fees for anti‑SLAPP work; the Appeals Court halved that award even after finding hours and rates reasonable, and the SJC concluded using the low dollar value of the Wage Act claim to cut fees was an abuse of discretion. (silverlakelegal.com)) The SJC reaffirmed use of the lodestar method—reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable rates—when awarding fees under G.L. c. 231, §59H, and described anti‑SLAPP issues in this litigation as “notoriously difficult.” (mass.gov)) The Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association filed an amici brief in the appeal, lead counsel for Hidalgo included David E. Belfort (with Robert S. Mantell assisting), and Elliott M. Loew represented Watch City. (mass.gov)) The ruling arrives while Beacon Hill considers tougher wage‑theft enforcement proposals, including bills like S.1300/H.1916 that would expand private enforcement mechanisms for wage claims. (trackbill.com))
