Employment – Contract – Wage Act

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff was granted partial summary judgment under the Wage Act, the judgment must be reversed because the employment agreement between the parties does not entitle the plaintiff to any unpaid wages.

“In August 2017, Southcoast Physicians Group, Inc. (Southcoast) terminated Francisco J. Gutierrez from his job as a physician. After his termination, Gutierrez sued Southcoast under the Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, §§148, 150, arguing that it owed him unpaid wages. Before trial, Southcoast moved for summary judgment, and Gutierrez cross-moved for partial summary judgment. A Superior Court judge granted Southcoast’s motion in part and granted Gutierrez’s motion in part. Both parties appeal from portions of the judgment. Concluding that the employment agreement between the parties does not entitle Gutierrez to any unpaid wages, we affirm in part and reverse in part. …

“Southcoast employed Gutierrez under an agreement dated October 1, 2015 (agreement). Schedule A of the agreement sets forth a complicated compensation scheme. The payment scheme consists of five ‘pools’ of various income sources that are calculated, then combined, to form a physician’s ‘Clinical Pool.’ The clinical pool is adjusted, depending on certain factors, to form the ‘Adjusted Clinical Pool,’ on which the physician’s total yearly compensation is based. One ‘pool’ is the alternative quality contract (AQC) payments and total medical expense (TME) incentive payments (AQC/TME payments). Schedule B of the agreement sets forth Gutierrez’s benefit plan.

“On August 9, 2017, Southcoast terminated Gutierrez’s employment. At the time of his termination, Gutierrez had received $193,171.44 in draw payments from the beginning of the fiscal year. Combined with the AQC/TME payments pursuant to the agreement, Gutierrez received a total of $226,990.52 from Southcoast.

“On July 9, 2019, Gutierrez filed this action against Southcoast alleging a violation of the Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, §§148, 150. Judgment was entered on November 10, 2021, allowing Southcoast’s motion for summary judgment to the extent the claims were based on the AQC/TME payments, and allowing Gutierrez’s motion for summary judgment as to the holiday pay deduction. …

“Taking the agreement as a whole, we conclude that Southcoast was not required to prorate Gutierrez’s [worked relative value units (wRVUs)] and properly capped his adjusted clinical pool at fifty percent. We also conclude that the language of the agreement did not grant Gutierrez AQC/TME payments until the end of his compensation period. Since he was terminated before this time, Gutierrez was not entitled to these payments. Lastly, because Southcoast did not owe Gutierrez any wages under the Wage Act, the issue of offsetting those wages using holiday pay is moot. Southcoast has already distributed $226,990.52 to Gutierrez, and we conclude that he is not owed any more wages. Accordingly, so much of the judgment pertaining to the holiday pay deduction is reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.”

Gutierrez v. Southcoast Physicians Group, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-141-22) (9 pages) (Docket No. 22-P-279) (Nov. 28, 2022).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.