On October 22, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated in which it rejected an ex-employee’s claim that his former employer violated the Massachusetts Wage Act (the “Act”) by delaying payment of a portion of his retention bonus.

By way of background, Syncsort hired Carlos Nunez (“Nunez”) in May 2020 as a senior director of finance. The parties subsequently entered a retention bonus agreement payable in two equal installments. To be entitled to payment, the agreement required continued employment on a regular schedule and in good standing through the designated payment dates. Syncsort terminated Nunez on the date the second installment was due. Nunez sued claiming a violation of the Act. Syncsort paid the second installment the day after Nunez filed his lawsuit.

In rejecting Nunez’s wage claim, the Supreme Judicial Court held that retention bonuses do not qualify as “wages” under the Act because they are not paid in exchange for an employee’s labor or services, but rather function as incentives to remain employed through specified dates. Thus, the dispositive consideration for determining whether a bonus constitutes a wage under state law is the purpose of the compensation.

This decision tracks with Massachusetts precedents that have narrowly construed the term “wages,” under the Act to exclude any type of contingent compensation that is not a “commission[] that [is] definitely determined and due and payable to the employee.” The key takeaway is that not all compensation falls within the purview of the Act and each situation must be analyzed on its unique facts.

While employers can mark the Nunez decision as a win, employers must remain vigilant as the consequences of running afoul of the Act are steep: treble damages and attorneys’ fees. For more information or assistance with wage and hour compliance, please contact a Bennett Law Firm attorney.