(Last Updated On: December 10, 2025)
If an employee is promised a retention bonus but is not appropriately compensated, can the employee file a claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act? Based on a recent ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), a retention bonus does not count as a “wage” for purposes of filing a claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act. This case, Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated (2025), has been moving through the state court system for nearly five years and was only recently decided by the SJC. The ruling in effect limits the reach of the Massachusetts Wage Act for employees and will likely have effects in certain employment law cases involving bonuses throughout the state. Our Massachusetts employment law attorneys can tell you more about the case and its potential effects on future employment law claims in Boston and Natick.
Getting the Facts of Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated
In Nunez, the plaintiff, Nunez, had an agreement with his employer, Syncsort Incorporated, “whereby he would receive two retention bonus payments if he remained with the company until fixed dates and remained in good performance standing without any reduction in his work schedule,” according to the case. Nunez was hired by Syncsort as a senior director of finance, which was a full-time position that later became a part-time position. At the time Nunez’s role moved to part-time, he entered into a retention bonus agreement with the employer. The retention bonus agreement said that the bonus was “an incentive for you [Nunez] to continue to contribute your efforts, talents and services to Syncsort during this time of change and integration.”
The agreement specified that Nunez would be eligible for two separate $15,000 retention bonuses on two different retention dates, one on November 30, 2020, and the second on February 18, 2021. Syncsort paid the first bonus on time. Nunez was later informed that his last day of work would be February 18, 2021, due to a reduction in the workforce. Syncsort then paid the second bonus on February 26, 2021, which was eight days after the promised pay date.
Nunez filed a claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act, arguing that the retention bonuses constituted “wages” and, as such, that Syncsort violated the Wage Act by failing to timely pay the second bonus. Accordingly, the SJC had to decide whether a retention bonus constitutes a “wage” for purposes of the Massachusetts Wage Act.
SJC Says Retention Bonuses are Not Wages Under the Massachusetts Wage Act
The Massachusetts Wage Act does not provide a detailed definition of what constitutes a “wage.” As such, the SJC had to determine whether Nunez’s retention bonus could be defined as a “wage’” under the Wage Act, such that Nunez could seek a remedy for eight-day-late compensation. The Wage Act requires employers to “promptly pay wages earned during a given period,” the SJC explained in the case, but underscored that “not all forms of employee compensation or benefits are ‘wages.’”
The SJC ultimately ruled that retention bonuses are not wages under the Wage Act. Instead, the court clarified, “they are a form of additional, contingent compensation outside the ambit of the Wage Act.” Accordingly, Nunez does not have a valid Wage Act claim.
The SJC reasoned that a retention bonus agreement has a different purpose than a wage agreement: “Retention agreements are used to encourage employees to remain with the company through a particular date,” and “the purpose of such bonuses is often to secure the services of the employee during a period of corporate uncertainty when the employee might otherwise be tempted to leave.” In short, the retention bonus agreement was an incentive for Nunez and thus was a form of contingent compensation rather than wages.
Effect of Nunez
The primary effect of Nunez is that employees will not be able to file claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act due to unpaid or delayed bonus payments under retention agreements. The case could also impact future employment and wage claims involving other types of contingent compensation that may fall outside the scope of a “wage.”
Contact a Massachusetts Employment Discrimination Attorney Representing Clients in Boston and Natick
If you have any questions about the Nunez case as an employer or an employee, or if you have any questions or concerns about retention bonus agreements or other forms of contingent compensation, it is important to seek legal advice. One of the experienced Boston wage and hour lawyers at our firm can speak with you today and answer any questions you have. Contact Rodman Employment Law for more information about wage laws in Massachusetts and how they apply to you.
