Breaking Down the Trickier Aspects of Massachusetts Laws

July 26, 2021

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Some Tips on Tips

Breaking Down the Trickier Aspects of Massachusetts Laws

By Ludwell Chase and Amy B. Royal, Esq.

State and federal laws pertaining to minimum wage, tips, overtime, and employing minors are complicated. As a result, these are areas where mistakes are often made.


Employers, however, cannot afford these errors because the consequences of not complying with these laws can be very costly. In fact, in Massachusetts, there are mandatory treble (triple) damages for violations of wage-and-hour laws relating to minimum wage, tips, and overtime. This means that, if an employer is found in violation of state law, at a minimum, for every dollar an employer does not pay in accordance with wage-and-hour laws, that employer will have to pay three times that amount.


Under Massachusetts and federal law, employers are allowed to pay employees who receive tips an hourly wage that is lower than the minimum wage. This works by allowing employers to take a ‘tip credit’ for a certain amount in tips that the employee earns. The employee must not make less than minimum wage when their tips and hourly wage are combined. Under the federal law, the Federal Labor Standards Act, all hourly workers must be paid the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Tipped workers may be directly paid $2.13 per hour if their tips and hourly wage combined are at least equal to the minimum wage. In other words, employers can claim a ‘tip credit’ of $5.12 per hour.


The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently released new proposed regulations for tipped workers that reinstate the 80/20 rule. This rule limits the amount of time tipped workers can spend performing activities that are related to tip-generating duties, while their employers can still claim the tip credit. Tipped workers must spend at least 80% of their time performing directly tip-generating activities, such as serving customers, and no more than 20% of their time performing not directly tip-generating activities, such as setting tables. This rule was previously in effect but was replaced by DOL guidance in 2018.


The 2018 guidance provided that employers could claim the tip credit if non-tipped duties were performed at the same time as tipped duties, or if the non-tipped duties were performed for a reasonable time before or after tipped duties. This new proposal returns to the 80/20 rule. In addition, the new proposal specifies that, if an employee performs non-tipped activities for 30 minutes in a row, the employer cannot pay the employee the lower tipped hourly wage for that time.


For employers with tipped workers that are subject to federal wage-and-hour law, this proposal is a good reminder that they need to pay attention to these potential changes and their effects on how they compensate employees.


Caution on the Menu

Massachusetts has its own complex laws relating to tips, minimum wage, and overtime. As a result, these are areas where it is easy for employers to make mistakes. Therefore, employers need to pay special attention to ensure they are complying with both state and federal laws. As of Jan. 1, 2021, the minimum wage in Massachusetts is $13.50 per hour. Massachusetts is incrementally increasing the minimum wage in order to reach a $15 minimum wage by 2023. For now, employers may pay workers who make at least $20 a month in tips a tipped hourly wage of $5.55 and take a tip credit of up to $7.95 per hour, for a combined minimum wage of $13.50.


The Massachusetts Tip Law mandates that all tips must be given to employees whose work directly generates tips, and that employers and managers may not keep any portion of their employees’ tips. The law applies to three categories of employees: waitstaff employees, service bartenders, and service employees. Waitstaff employees include waiters, waitresses, busboys, and counter staff who serve beverages or food directly to patrons or clear tables, and do not have any managerial responsibilities. Service bartenders prepare beverages to be served by another employee. Service employees include any other staff providing service directly to customers who customarily receive tips but have no managerial responsibilities. For the purposes of this law, managerial responsibilities are duties such as making or influencing employment decisions, scheduling shifts or work hours of employees, and supervising employees.


Massachusetts law allows for ‘tip-pooling’ arrangements. This means all or a portion of tips earned by waitstaff employees are pooled together and then distributed among those employees. Employers must be cautious when administering a tip pool and ensure that only waitstaff, service bartenders, and service employees are being paid from the pool. This means managers and back-of-house employees like cooks and dishwashers cannot share in tips. Even employees with limited managerial roles who also directly serve patrons are not considered waitstaff employees on days when they perform managerial duties.


When employees do not receive enough in tips to make up the difference between the tipped hourly wage and the minimum wage, employers must pay the difference. Employers are required to calculate tipped employees’ wages at the end of each shift, rather than at the end of the pay period. This requires employers to keep track of how much workers receive in tips for each shift. This may also require employers to pay their tipped employees additional amounts in order to compensate for slow shifts.


Under Massachusetts law, certain businesses, including restaurants, are exempt from paying employees overtime; however, they may not be exempt under federal law. If subject to federal law, employees working in restaurants must be paid one and one-half times the minimum wage (not one and one-half times $5.55 per hour) for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.


Under the Massachusetts Tip Law, if a restaurant includes a service charge, which serves as the functional equivalent of an automatic tip or gratuity, all the proceeds from that service charge must be paid only to waitstaff employees, service employees, or bartenders as a tip. Employers may, however, charge a ‘house fee’ or an ‘administrative fee,’ which they may use or distribute at their discretion, but only if it is clearly stated to customers that the fee is not a tip, gratuity, or service charge for tipped employees. Thus, any fees not intended as gratuities and not paid solely to tipped employees should not be labeled as a service charge.


Food for Thought

These complexities are especially important to Massachusetts employers, given that the consequences of failing to comply with wage-and-hour laws can be costly, and the penalty is the same regardless of whether the employer violated the law willfully or by mistake.


Considering the consequences of violations, businesses with tipped employees should regularly consult with their employment counsel to review their practices and policies to ensure compliance with state and federal law.


Ludwell Chase and Amy B. Royal work at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, boutique, corporate law firm; (413) 586-2288; aroyal@theroyallawfirm.com

This article was published in BusinessWest.

Modern Leadership Through Coaching

June 20, 2025
“Ability is what you’re capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.” This quote from my Notre Dame football coach, Lou Holtz, has not only resonated with me through all aspects of my life, but it has guided me in coaching employees for success. Indeed, in playing for Coach Holtz in the late 1980s and winning a national championship with him, I learned quite a bit about leadership and accomplishing goals. The following takeaways that I learned as a young adult are what I have implemented into my professional life. While the objectives of leadership — driving performance, fostering engagement, and cultivating growth — remain constant, the ways in which we motivate our teams have evolved with each generation. What inspired Baby Boomers may not resonate with Millennials or Gen Z. Understanding these generational shifts is key to effective leadership today. In today’s work environment, coaching employees is not just a leadership tactic — it’s a strategic imperative. Remote work has reshaped communication, and employee expectations have shifted toward development and purpose. Coach Holtz’s quote serves as a simple but powerful framework for effective coaching: leaders must recognize ability, fuel motivation, and shape attitudes to bring out the best in their teams. Recognizing Ability: Know What Your People Can Do The first step in coaching is understanding each employee’s strengths and capabilities. This means going beyond résumés and job descriptions to truly observe how individuals think, solve problems, and interact with others. When leaders understand what their team members are capable of, they can align tasks and goals in ways that challenge without overwhelming. Coaching helps bridge the gap between raw potential and real-world performance. Inspiring Motivation: Help People See the Why Motivation is deeply personal. What drives one employee may not matter to another. Effective coaches take time to learn what inspires their team — whether it’s growth opportunities, recognition, or a sense of purpose. By connecting everyday work to larger goals and company values, leaders can unlock intrinsic motivation. Motivated employees are more likely to take initiative, push past obstacles, and grow within the organization. The Leader’s Role in Shaping Attitude Attitude determines how work gets done. A coach’s role is to cultivate a culture where positivity, resilience, and accountability thrive. This involves addressing challenges by considering setbacks as chances for learning and demonstrating emotional intelligence. Leaders who coach with empathy and encouragement set the tone for how their teams respond to pressure, change, and collaboration. From Feedback to Forward Momentum Coaching isn’t about occasional feedback — it’s about ongoing dialogue. Regular check-ins, clear communication, and actionable suggestions create an environment where employees feel supported and empowered. Effective coaching helps people take ownership of their growth, rather than waiting for direction. It turns feedback into fuel for development. Coaching in the Modern Workplace Hybrid teams, technological shifts, and generational changes have made coaching even more essential. Today’s leaders must be more intentional about building connections and offering guidance, especially when face-to-face time is limited. Virtual coaching tools can help, but the foundation remains the same: genuine curiosity, active listening, and consistent support. The Lasting Impact of a Great Coach Coaching done well builds more than just stronger employees — it builds stronger people. When leaders take the time to develop ability, ignite motivation, and nurture the right attitude, they create lasting value for individuals and the organization. As Coach Holtz wisely reminds us, performance is not just about what you can do — it’s about how and why you do it. Derek Brown is chief administrative officer at the Royal Law Firm, LLP and a retired, nine-year NFL veteran who also gives speeches on leadership and teamwork to accomplish goals. The Royal Law Firm LLP, is a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Derek Brown wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.

Good Faith Engagement with ADA Accommodations Makes all the Difference

June 19, 2025
Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC Leroy Dooley appealed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada decision to grant Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants. Dooley alleged in his original suit that Nevada Gold Mines, LLC “NGM” violated The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under failure to accommodate when they made the decision to terminate his employment after his medical leave ended. Before having to go on medical leave, Dooley worked as a Process Maintenance Tech 6. The Tech 6 role is physically demanding. An essential function of the Tech 6 role included repairing ore-processing equipment, a task that required lifting and carrying up to sixty pounds, frequently twisting, and occasionally stooping, kneeling, and crawling. Dooley’s return to work form provided by his doctor indicated he could not lift more than ten pounds, carry more than fifteen pounds, bend, squat, or twist. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants. Restructuring His Position Dooley asserts that NGM could have restructured his position and reassigned repairing ore-processing equipment to other technicians. The court concedes that role restructuring is generally a reasonable accommodation however, an employer is not required “to exempt an employee from performing essential functions or to reallocate essential functions to other employees.” Dark, 451 F.3d at 1089. Dooley also alleged that NGM could have reduced his hours as part of an accommodation while NGM continued to assert that even working part time Dooley would need to repair ore-processing equipment, an action he was still not cleared to do by his doctor even on a part time basis. Request for Assistive Equipment Dooley argued that NGM should have allowed him to use existing workplace equipment like cranes, forklifts, and dollies as assistive equipment to perform his role. Providing such equipment could typically be an accommodation but Dooley provided no evidence that he could operate the referenced equipment with his medical restrictions. Reassignment Dooley alleges that he was denied reassignment as a reasonable accommodation because he was denied reassignment to an open lab position in April 2018. However, Dooley was only cleared to work in December 2018 when the position was no longer open. NGM had other roles open at that time, and it is an undisputed fact that Dooley turned reassignment to those positions down. Per Wellington v. Lyon Cnty. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1999) “there is no duty to create a new position for the disabled employee." Dooley had turned down the positions that would have qualified as a reasonable accommodation, there was no expectation for NGM to create additional roles to accommodate Dooley. Request for Additional Leave It is undisputed that NGM provided Dooley with paid disability leave for over a year, including two extensions. Because of the length of the accommodation, Dooley was required to show that additional leave would have allowed him to heal and “plausibly have enabled [him] adequately to perform [his] job. Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1136. Dooley could not provide such documentation because his doctor indicated that the restrictions were permanent. Dooley does not allege that more leave would have healed him but that it would have provided more time for him to “bid on positions that would come open.” However, Dooley failed to present any evidence that such positions opened within a reasonable time after his termination that he would have been able to perform. Take Aways NGM was able to provide documentation that they fully engaged with Dooley’s requests in good faith and that the process was hindered by Dooley’s lack of engagement and documentation. Awareness of ADA obligations and processes is the best pre-emptive protection against a claim of discrimination. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.