Massachusetts Employment Laws for Employers

Massachusetts' state minimum wage is $15.00 per hour. (Massachusetts minimum wage law (DOL WHD state minimum wage table, updated July 1, 2026))

“Massachusetts Basic Minimum Rate (per hour): $15.00”

“Effective January 1, 2023, the minimum wage is $15.00 per hour and the service rate is $6.75 (applied to workers who provide services to customers and who make more than $20 a month in tips).”

dol.gov · mass.gov

Report an error

Hourly employees must be paid weekly or bi-weekly. (Massachusetts payday law (DOL WHD State Payday Requirements, footnote 9))

“9 Massachusetts. Hourly employees must be paid either weekly or biweekly.”

“Every person having employees in his service shall pay weekly or bi-weekly each such employee the wages earned by him”

dol.gov · malegislature.gov

One more case for this topic is pending verification. Official source.

Report an error

Workers who work more than 6 hours in a calendar day have a right to at least a 30-minute meal break, during which they must be free of all duties and free to leave the workplace. (Massachusetts statute (DOL WHD meal period table))

“Workers have a right to at least a 30-minute meal break or each 6 hours worked in a calendar day. During their meal break, workers must be free of all duties and free to leave the workplace.”

“Workers have a right to at least a 30-minute meal break if they work more than six hours during a calendar day. During their meal break, workers must be free of all duties and free to leave the workplace.”

dol.gov · mass.gov

Report an error

Massachusetts workers must earn at least one hour of earned sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to 40 hours per year. (Mass.gov (Attorney General), Earned sick time (M.G.L. c. 149, § 148C))

“Most workers in Massachusetts have the right to earn and use up to 40 hours of job-protected sick time per year to take care of themselves and certain family members. Workers must earn at least one hour of earned sick leave for every 30 hours worked.”

“Covered employees earn sick time at a rate of 1 hour for every 30 hours worked.”

mass.gov · govinfo.gov

Report an error

Massachusetts recognizes a wrongful-termination claim for at-will employees only when the firing violates a clearly established public policy (King v. Driscoll); the Supreme Judicial Court interprets this exception narrowly. (Dineen v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. 1:13-cv-12200 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2014), quoting King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 (1994); Suzuki v. Abiomed, Inc., No. 19-1233 (1st Cir.), n.4, citing King v. Driscoll, 638 N.E.2d 488, 492 (Mass. 1994))

“As an exception to the general rule, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has recognized that “an at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful termination only if the termination violates a clearly established public policy.””

“The SJC has permitted at-will employees to bring wrongful termination claims when their dismissal allegedly violates a clearly established public policy.”

govinfo.gov · media.ca1.uscourts.gov

Report an error

In Massachusetts, employment is presumed to be at will unless an express or implied contract governs its terms and conditions. (Dineen v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. 1:13-cv-12200 (D. Mass. 2014), n.2, quoting Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42, 58 (1st Cir. 2009); Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009), No. 08-1689)

““In Massachusetts, employment is presumed to be at-will unless there exists an express or implied contract governing its terms and conditions.””

Same official text as quoted above (see the quote; Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009), No. 08-1689 · media.ca1.uscourts.gov).

govinfo.gov · media.ca1.uscourts.gov

Report an error

Massachusetts implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment contracts, but it is limited: an employer who fires an employee in bad faith is liable for unpaid compensation clearly connected to work already performed (Fortune v. National Cash Register). (Bradley v. Cruz, No. 1:13-cv-12927 (D. Mass. Nov. 3, 2014), quoting Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 744 N.E.2d 622, 629 (Mass. 2001), and Fortune v. Nat’l Cash Register Co., 364 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. 1977); Suzuki v. Abiomed, Inc., No. 19-1233 (1st Cir.), quoting Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 822 N.E.2d 667, 684 (Mass. 2005))

““an employer is accountable to a discharged employee for unpaid compensation if the employee were (sic) terminated in bad faith and the compensation is clearly connected to work already performed.””

“Although the range of theories available under the implied covenant in the employment context is indistinct, the SJC has taken pains to note that employers, "in varying contexts and subject to strict limitations," have been found liable for breach of the implied covenant "only in circumstances when an at-will employee has been terminated in bad faith."”

govinfo.gov · media.ca1.uscourts.gov

Report an error