In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Appeals Court determined the state law prohibiting employers from misclassifying workers as independent contractors and from retaliating against workers for filing wage law violation complaints does not apply to the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions.
The plaintiffs in Harrison v. MBTA were hired by staffing agencies to perform information technology services for the defendant, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. They filed a complaint alleging a violation of MGL c. 149, §148B claiming they were misclassified as independent contractors, and MGL c. 149, §148A alleging retaliatory termination for asserting their rights under the Massachusetts wage and hour laws.
The Court noted the retaliation provision of the statute, Section 148A, uses the terms “employee” and “employer,” but does not define whether those terms cover public employment, thereby creating an ambiguity as to whether public employment is included within the statute’s scope. The Court stated that the absence of any indication in the retaliation provision that the Legislature intended to include public employers “militates against application” of the statute to public employers.
The Court went on to note the independent contractor provision of the statute, Section 148B, states “whoever… fails to properly classify an individual as an employee…shall be subject to all criminal and civil remedies…” and “whoever” has been defined for purposes of all Massachusetts statutes to include “corporations, societies, associations and partnerships,” and does not encompass government agencies or municipalities.
The Court reasoned further that many other provisions of Chapter 149 expressly apply to public employers and public employees, which suggests the Legislature knew how to make the independent contractor law applicable to public employment if it had so desired.
Public entities are generally immune from liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity (i.e., the government and its political subdivisions cannot be sued without its consent). The Court ultimately held the State wage and anti-retaliation laws fail to name otherwise immune public entities among the employers that could be held liable under those statutory provisions and, therefore, a waiver of sovereign immunity was not intended. The three judge panel concluded that this application of sovereign immunity was consistent with the Legislature’s interest in “protecting the public treasury…from unanticipated money judgments.”
This decision offers a defense to public employers against claims alleging the public employer misclassified an individual as an independent contractor.
Please contact any member of Mirick O’Connell’s Charter School Law Group if you have any questions about this decision.
