Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XXI Chapter 149
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A (2026)

Employees seeking rights under provisions of this chapter; discharge or discrimination; punishment

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 148A. No employee shall be penalized by an employer in any way as a result of any action on the part of an employee to seek his or her rights under the wages and hours provisions of this chapter.

Any employer who discharges or in any other manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has made a complaint to the attorney general or any other person, or assists the attorney general in any investigation under this chapter, or has instituted, or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceedings, shall have violated this section and shall be punished or shall be subject to a civil citation or order as provided in section 27C.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Chuan Wang v. Palmisano, 157 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chuan Wang v. Palmisano, 157 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). · cites it 4× “149, §§ 148 , 150; (2) failure to pay Plaintiff wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act; ■ (3) unlawful discharge of Plaintiff in retaliation for seeking to enforce his rights under the Wage Act, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A; (4) unlawful…”
Smith v. Winter Place LLC, 851 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 7× “They contend that the defendants terminated their employment in violation of the retaliation provision of the Massachusetts wage laws, G. L. c. 149, § 148A, for complaining about what they perceived to be violations of the statute’s tip pooling provision, G.”
Chambers v. RDI Logistics, Inc., 65 N.E.3d 1 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 4× “We conclude similarly that the dismissal, without explanation, of the claim of retaliation that Timothy Chambers individually asserts under G. L. c. 149, § 148A, was improper. Finally, we review the denial of the plaintiffs’ request for a protective order, brought in the wake of…”
Craig Harrison v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth.., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 659 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 11× “149, § 148B, as well as unlawful retaliation in violation of G. L. c. 149, § 148A, the judge did not err in granting the MBTA's motion to dismiss on the ground of sovereign immunity, where the language of those statutes gave no express indication that the Legislature intended to…”
Fernandes v. Attleboro Hous. Auth., 20 N.E.3d 229 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 4× “More specifically, Fernandes asserted that the AHA intentionally misclassified his position and thereby failed to pay him the wages to which he was entitled, see G. L. c. 149, § 148, 6 and that the AHA then terminated his employment in retaliation for his filing of a nonpayment…”
Lipsitt v. Plaud, 994 N.E.2d 777 (Mass. 2013). · cites it 3× “149, § 152A], the Wrongful Termination statute [G. L. c. 149, § 148A] and the Prevailing Wage statute [G.”
Wang v. Palmisano, 51 F. Supp. 3d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 4× “§ 206 ; (3) unlawful discharge of Plaintiff in retaliation for seeking rights under the Wage Act, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A; (4) unlawful discharge of Plaintiff in retaliation for seeking rights under the FLSA, in violation of 29 U.”
Robert Reiser & Co. v. Scriven, 130 F. Supp. 3d 488 (D. Mass. 2015). · cites it 5× “Count Eight: Retaliation Count Eight of the counterclaim alleges claims for retaliation under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A and the common law.”
Valle v. Powertech Indus. Co., 381 F. Supp. 3d 151 (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 4× “Against Powertech, Valle also alleges a breach of the covenant of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count V) and retaliation in violation of Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, § 148A (Count IX). D.”
Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, 876 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2017). “unjustly enriched Dynamex, and that Dynamex had improperly retaliated against Ouadani in violation of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 149, § 148A. Ouadani sought to recover unpaid wages, reimbursement of improper deductions and unpaid travel expenses, and damages resulting from Dy-namex’s…”
Travers v. Flight Servs. & Sys., Inc., 808 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Tra-vers’s suit further contends that, in-consequence, FSS violated both the FLSA and the Massachusetts wage and tips law, as each of those laws prohibits a company from taking adverse action against an employee who seeks to obtain the protection that those laws provide.”
Mello v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 524 N.E.2d 105 (Mass. 1988). “), providing job security to an employee who takes annual training in the military reserve and giving the employee the right to sue the employer for a violation of rights; G. L. c. 149, § 148A (1986 ed.), providing that no employee shall be penalized for seeking rights under the…”
Show all 60 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.