NORTHAMPTON — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is taking up a class action complaint, dismissed last October by a Hampshire Superior Court judge, that contends Amherst College violated the Massachusetts Wage Act law by paying former employees monthly.
On Feb. 26, the case, originally filed on Dec. 26, 2024, was transferred through a direct appellate review to the state’s highest court.
In getting the case to the SJC, the attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the college was given retroactive immunity, through state legislation, that violates Massachusetts and federal constitutions by selectively exempting a small number of employers from accountability, and depriving workers of the protections of the law.
The law, in effect since 1955, states that employees are prohibited from paying their workers less frequently than twice per month, unless those employees give permission for that payment schedule.
The original lawsuit stated that John T. Martin, a Hampden County resident who from 2017 to 2023 was director of the Queer Resource Center and interim assistant dean of students for identity and cultural resources, and Danielle Amodeo, a Brooklyn County, New York resident who from 2017 to 2022 was a public programs and marketing coordinator, public programs and marketing specialist and associate director of communication and public programs for the college’s Mead Art Museum, were harmed through the payment process that was the college’s policy at the time. Both were salaried employees and the college violated timely payment requirements, the plaintiffs’ lawyers claim.
Hampshire Superior Court Judge James M. Manitsas dismissed the lawsuit on Oct. 31, agreeing with the college that it was now immune from the lawsuit based on Gov. Maura Healey signing a bill into law on July 4. That law includes Section 113 of Chapter 9 of the Acts and Resolves of 2025 and terminated these claims and several other recent class action lawsuits that had been brought to recover damages against nonprofit institutions of higher education based on the monthly payments to salaried employees.
The appeal from Francis J. Bingham and Brooks Hopkins of Bingham Hopkins LLC of Cambridge and Raymond Dinsmore, Richard E. Hayber and Ryan B. Guers of Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC of Springfield, states:
“The dismissal was based on new legislation which targets this lawsuit and several others by retroactively immunizing Amherst College from the consequences of their Massachusetts Wage Act violations. The new legislation violates Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.”
Amherst College spokeswoman Carolien Hanna issued a statement in support of having the Supreme Judicial Court take up the matter.
“Amherst College employees have always been paid fairly, in full, and on time,” Hanna said.
“We appreciate the Massachusetts Legislature’s transparent process to address unintended consequences of the Wage Act for colleges and universities across the commonwealth. We also recognize the plaintiffs’ right to appeal the superior court’s October 2025 decision upholding the legality of this legislation, a conclusion reached by all four courts that have reviewed this issue; in fact, we joined the plaintiffs in requesting that the Supreme Judicial Court review their appeal, because an SJC ruling will provide clarity for the many nonprofit institutions of higher education that previously followed a similar pay practice.”
The college’s policy has been to pay exempt staff members, trustee-appointed staff members and faculty members on the final business day of each month.
State law says “employers must pay all wages due to an employee within six days of the termination of the pay period in which such wages were earned” or else owe damages equal to three times the late paid wages, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Cumulatively, the lawsuit contends Martin received $79,099 in gross wages later than required by law and Amodeo received $22,532 in gross wages later than required by law.
Last year, President Michael A. Elliott and Mike Thomas, chief financial and administrative officer, sent a letter to employees stating that salaried faculty and staff are paid monthly, “a longstanding practice communicated in the employee handbook and offer letters,” and that the lawsuit was based on a narrow and incorrect interpretation of the law, and the outcome could constrain college operations.
That was followed a few weeks later by a letter sent by Thomas announcing that the college would begin paying exempt employees twice a month starting in March 2025.