State Law Remedies No Longer Available for FLSA Violations

May 27, 2022

Case in Point


By Alexander Cerbo, Esq.

 

As most employers are aware, non-payment of wages claims can be made under both state law, the Massachusetts Wage Act (“MWA”), and federal law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Although similar in many respects, the MWA and FLSA have several important differences.



First, under the FLSA, either a two-or three-year statute of limitations applies, depending on whether the claimant can demonstrate that the employer acted “willfully.” On the other hand, the MWA provides for a strict three-year statute of limitations. Also, the FLSA allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover costs, attorney’s fees, and potential liquidated damages (i.e. damages collected as a result of a breach of the contract) equal to the amount of lost wages.


Essentially, employees can recover “double damages” or double the amount of back pay damages for unpaid overtime. On the other hand, remedies under the MWA are even greater. Plaintiffs can recover attorney’s fees and costs, both of which are subject to treble, or triple, damages.

When deciding which law to bring a wage claim under, Massachusetts plaintiffs often file under the MWA because of the greater remedies available to them under the MWA. However, this is not always the case.


In a recent matter before the highest court in Massachusetts, several restaurant workers asserted unpaid overtime claims under the FLSA. But these plaintiffs cannot assert these claims under the MWA because restaurant workers, as well as other service-industry employees, as a matter of law, are not entitled to overtime wages. Nevertheless, they attempted to argue that violations of the FLSA entitled them to damages under the MWA. The SJC disagreed, holding that remedies afforded under the state MWA are to be preempted by the federal FLSA where employees’ claims for unpaid overtime wages arise exclusively under federal law.


While this decision is good news for employers, the remedies available under the FLSA remain considerable. To avoid these substantial damages, employers should ensure internal procedures are in place, and consistently followed, so as to guarantee all employees are paid wages owed to them.

 

This article was published in the most recent edition of BusinessWest.


Alexander Cerbo is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is 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.

Client Update: Supreme Court Ends Nationwide Injunctions—What Employers Need to Know

July 25, 2025
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts cannot block executive orders for the entire country. The Court held that such broad injunctions exceed the authority Congress granted under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Courts may now only stop enforcement for the parties in the case—not for everyone else. What Happened in the Case President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in early 2025. It denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple lawsuits followed. Three federal courts blocked the order nationwide. The Supreme Court disagreed. It sent the case back and told the lower courts to revise the injunctions to cover only the named plaintiffs. The Court did not decide whether the order itself violates the Constitution. It ruled only on how far a court’s injunction can reach. Why It Matters to Employers The ruling affects how quickly and widely federal courts can stop controversial policies, especially during fast-changing political cycles. Employers have often relied on national injunctions to pause new mandates on wages, workplace safety, pay transparency, and non-compete agreements. This decision limits that option. The Court said nothing about injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rules. But the opinion raises doubts about whether even those can continue on a nationwide scale. Justice Kavanaugh suggested they might, but the Court left that question for another day. What This Means for You No nationwide protection unless you sue If your business is not part of the case, you likely cannot rely on someone else’s win. You must litigate directly to get relief. Rules may take effect in one state and not another A federal court in Texas may block a rule, while a court in New York upholds it. National companies may face conflicting rules and inconsistent enforcement. Trade groups cannot shield you Even if your industry association wins an injunction, it may apply only to their members or to the parties named in the lawsuit. Older rulings may now shrink Past national injunctions—on vaccine mandates, non-compete bans, overtime rules, or joint-employer standards—could be challenged or narrowed based on this ruling. More class actions are likely Some plaintiffs may now push for class certification to restore broader relief. Employers could face more complex litigation as a result. Next Steps for Employers Identify any current or past rules your business has relied on that are being blocked nationwide. Confirm whether you were covered by name or just assumed you were protected. Reassess your risk exposure for pending federal actions under OSHA, the EEOC, the DOL, or the NLRB. Monitor APA-based injunctions to see whether courts continue to grant broad relief under that statute. Consider joining strategic litigation early if new executive orders or agency rules would harm your operations. You cannot assume another company’s lawsuit will protect you. The Court narrowed that path. To block a federal mandate, you may now need to act alone—or join the fight directly. Michael P. Lewis is an attorney at The Royal Law Firm with experience advising clients through the litigation process. Michael helps employers resolve workplace challenges with focus, precision, and judgment. He counsels and defends businesses across Massachusetts and Connecticut, handling matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour claims, restrictive covenants, and breach of contract. His practice includes litigation in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. 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.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!