Clermont v. Monster Worldwide, Inc.

Clermont v. Monster Worldwide, Inc.

Opinion

 [*355]  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

SOROKIN, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Monster employed Plaintiff. Am. Compl. ¶ 15. On April 3, 2014, Monster ("Defendant") terminated Plaintiff's employment. Id. ¶ 16. On that day Defendant, via its bank, issued an electronic transfer of funds from its account to Plaintiff's bank account in the full amount of all wages due, which was $26,401.50. Id. ¶ 18. The funds appeared in Plaintiff's account the next day, April 4. Id. ¶ 19. Defendant knew at the time it issued the electronic transfer that Plaintiff would not receive the funds until April 4. Doc. No. 5. On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Massachusetts Superior Court, Compl., and filed an amended complaint on October 30, 2014, Am. Compl. Defendant received [**2]  service of the amended complaint on November 14, 2014. Defs.' Notice Rem. ¶ 3. Defendants filed a notice of removal on December 4, 2014, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Id.

Plaintiff claims a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, chapter 149, section 148 of the Massachusetts General Laws on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated. Am. Compl. ¶ 2. Defendant has moved to dismiss. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss. Given that the foregoing facts appear undisputed, neither party has suggested it needs discovery to prepare its case and the case presents questions of law, the Court treats the parties' filings as cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.

II. Statutory Requirement

The statute defines when employers must pay terminated employees: "any employee discharged from such employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148. Statutory language must be interpreted "according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved  [*356]  usage of the language" and in consideration of the purpose of the "cause of its enactment." Bos. Police Patrolmen's Ass'n v. City of Bos., 435 Mass. 718, 761 N.E.2d 479, 481 (Mass. 2002) (citing O'Brien v. Dir. of the Div. of Emp't Sec'y, 393 Mass. 482, 472 N.E.2d 253, 258 (Mass. 1984)).

The purpose of the Massachusetts Wage Act is to ensure that employees receive prompt payment of wages, [**3]  Wiedmann v. The Bradford Grp., Inc., 444 Mass. 698, 831 N.E.2d 304, 308 (Mass. 2005), and to "prevent the unreasonable detention of wages" by employers. Melia v. Zenhire, Inc., 462 Mass. 164, 967 N.E.2d 580, 587 (Mass. 2012); see also, Newton v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Youth Servs., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 343, 816 N.E.2d 993, 995 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). The Act requires "that an employer expeditiously pay a terminated employee his full wages and similar compensation," Suominen v. Goodman Indust. Equity Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 723, 941 N.E.2d 694, 705 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011), which "must" be paid in full on the day that the employee is terminated, Prozinski v. Ne. Real Estate Servs., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 599, 797 N.E.2d 415 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.