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

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 149 (2026)

Summons and warrant for violations of Sec. 148

✓ 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 149. A justice or clerk of a district court, or a trial justice, may upon the application of any employee issue a summons to an employer to appear and show cause why a warrant should not issue against him for a violation of section one hundred and forty-eight. Upon the return of such summons and after a hearing the justice may issue a warrant upon the complaint of any such employee.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1988–2017 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Savage, 583 N.E.2d 276 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Savage, 583 N.E.2d 276 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). “Under G. L. c. 149, § 149, an employee can bring a complaint in the District Court in his or her own behalf.”
Commonwealth v. N. Telecom, Inc., 517 N.E.2d 491 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988). “Under G. L. c. 149, § 149, employees who have not received their wages or “definitely determined” commissions that have become due, may seek complaints in their own behalf.”
Montello v. Smith, 1998 Mass. App. Div. 43 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1998). “More importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that the plaintiff has ever agreed to pay the household members in question, that she intends to pay them, or that she feels any obligation, legal or moral, to do so.”
Conway v. CLC Bio, LLC, 32 N.E.3d 330 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). “She concluded, however, that the ISB did not become “definitely determined” and “due and payable,” see G. L. c. 149, § 149, until the end of February, 2012, rather than the date of Conway’s termination, because the employment contract provided that ISB commissions were to be…”
Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas & Elec. Light Co., 30 Mass. L. Rptr. 612 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2013). “23, the Supreme Judicial Court has cautioned against “equating the similarity requirements of rule 23(a) with the requirements of §9(2) that the parties seeking certification are ‘similarly situated’ and have suffered a ‘similar injuiy’ as members of the class they seek to…”
Scott v. Granada Comput. Servs., Inc., 5 Mass. L. Rptr. 351 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1996). “’s motion to dismiss (1) Count I, G.L.c. 149, §§149 and 150 is DENIED; (2) Count III, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith, is ALLOWED; and (3) Count IV, Wrongful Termination, is ALLOWED.”
Kohli v. RES Eng'g, Inc., 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 108 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). “In sum, the defendant has failed to show that Count II of the Complaint alleges no set of facts which would entitle the plaintiff to relief under G.L.c. 149, §§149 and 150. 4 ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant RES Engineering Inc.”
Bassett v. Triton Tech., Inc., 34 Mass. L. Rptr. 174 (Suffolk Mass. Super. Ct. 2017). “136, §6(50), is a violation of the Wage Act, the private right of action created by G.L.c. 149, §149, allows Plaintiffs to sue for non-payment of the higher wages they claim to have earned for working on Sundays.”
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.