MacIntyre et al v. Curry College

United 	States 	District 	Court
District 	of Massachusetts
Emily MacIntyre, 	et 	al .,
Plaintiff,
V.
Curry 	College,
Defendant.
GORTON, 	J .
Civil Action No.
25- 10585-NMG
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
This 	case 	arises 	from 	an 	alleged 	violation 	of 	the
Massachusetts 	Wage 	Act , 	M. G. L . 	ch . 	149 	§148 	(" the 	Wage 	Act " )
Plaintiffs 	Emily 	MacIntyre 	and 	Kieth 	Fitts 	(collectively ,
"plaintiffs " ) 	allege 	that 	defendant 	Curry 	College 	(" Curry " 	or
" defendant " ) 	paid 	wages 	in 	a 	monthly 	cadence , 	rather 	than 	weekly
or 	biweekly , 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	Wage 	Act . 	Defendant 	moves 	to
dismiss 	the 	claims 	based 	on 	federal 	preemption 	and 	a 	new 	state
statute 	immunizi ng 	nonpro fit , 	higher 	education 	institutions 	from
such 	liabilit y . 	For 	the 	following 	reason , 	the 	defendant ' s
motion 	will 	be 	allowed .
- 1 -
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 11

I. 	Background
A. Facts
Curry 	College 	is 	a 	private 	un iver sity 	located 	in 	Milton ,
Massachusetts , 	that 	employs 	different 	categories 	of 	fac ulty 	to
teac h 	courses 	throughout 	the 	year . 	Generally , 	the 	faculty 	teach
cou rses 	from 	August 	to 	December 	for 	the 	fall 	semester 	and 	from
January 	to 	May 	for 	the 	spring 	semester . 	Depending 	on 	their
employment 	designation , 	there 	are 	variations 	with 	respect 	to
their 	pay 	schedules . 	There 	are 	three 	separate 	categories : 	1)
full - time 	faculty , 	2) 	part - time 	faculty 	consisting 	of 	l ecturers ,
associate 	lecturers 	and 	sen ior 	lecturers 	and 	3) 	full - 	or 	part -
time 	faculty 	who 	teach 	" overload 	courses " 	outside 	of 	their
standard 	schedule 	for 	extra 	pay .
Emily 	MacIntyre 	worked 	at 	Curry 	College 	from 	August , 	2014 ,
until 	December , 	2022 	as 	an 	Associate 	Professor .
overload 	co urse 	during 	the 	fall 	2022 	semester .
She 	taught 	an
Keith 	Fitts 	is
currently 	employed 	at 	Curry 	College , 	worked 	as 	an 	associate
lecturer 	fro m August , 	2020 , 	through 	August , 	2023 , 	and 	was
promoted 	to 	lecturer 	in 	August , 	2023 . 	Plaintiffs 	bring 	claims
on 	behalf 	of 	three 	proposed 	classes 	of 	employees 	at 	Curry 	during
the 	class 	period : 	1) 	" the 	Associate 	Lecturer 	Class " 	made 	up 	of
all 	associate 	lect urers , 	2) 	" the 	Lecturer 	Class " 	made 	up 	of 	all
lecturers 	and 	3) 	" the 	Overload 	Class " 	made 	up 	of 	senior
lecturers 	and 	full - time 	faculty 	who 	taught 	overload 	courses .
- 2 -
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 11

Payment 	to 	members 	of 	these 	classes 	is 	made 	pursuant 	to
single 	semester 	contracts 	and 	is 	d i sbursed 	in 	four 	equal
insta l lments . 	Payments 	are 	made 	on 	the 	first 	day 	of 	e a c h 	mo n t h ,
starting 	in 	October 	and 	March , 	of 	the 	respective 	semesters .
Those 	paychecks 	note 	the 	associated 	pay 	periods 	a s 	being 	fo r 	the
entire 	month 	after 	the 	date 	it 	is 	issued 	(~ , 	the 	October 	1
paycheck 	lists 	the 	pay 	period 	as 	October 	1 	to 	October 	31) . 	The
pay 	periods 	are 	not 	strictly monthly 	because 	work 	for 	the 	fall
and 	spring 	semesters 	begins 	in 	Au gust 	and 	January , 	respectively .
B . Procedural ·History
In 	March , 	2025 , 	Plaintiffs 	filed 	a 	class - action 	comp l a i n t
against 	Curry 	alleging 	violation s 	of 	the 	Wage 	Act , 	which
regulates 	t he 	cadence 	at 	which 	employers 	are 	required 	to 	pay
wages 	and 	provides 	remedies 	for 	their 	failure 	to 	do 	so .
Plaintiffs 	allege 	that 	defendant ' s 	policy 	of 	paying 	four 	equal
installments 	of 	wages 	violates 	the 	requirements 	of 	Wage 	Act 	that
they 	are 	to 	be 	paid 	weekly 	or 	biweekly 	unless 	an 	employ e e 	el ect s
otherwise .
In 	May , 	2025 , 	defendant 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss , 	in 	par t ,
under 	Fed . R . Civ . P . 	(12) (b) (6) 	(Docket 	No . 	22) , 	arguing 	that
claims 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	Lecturer 	Class 	and 	Overload 	Class 	are
preempted 	by 	federal 	l abor 	law 	and 	must 	be 	dismissed . 	It
asserts 	that 	pay 	schedules 	for 	those 	classes 	are 	defined 	by 	the
Collective 	Bargaining Agreement 	(" CBA " ) 	between 	Curry 	and 	the
- 3-
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 11

Curry 	College 	Chapter 	of 	the 	American 	Association 	of 	College
Professors 	(" the 	Union " ) 	and 	that 	any 	associated 	claims 	must 	be
brought 	under 	the 	grievance 	procedure 	of 	the 	CBA .
In 	July , 	2025 , 	the 	Massachusetts 	Legislature 	passed 	Section
113 	of 	Chapter 	9 	of 	the 	Acts 	and 	Resolves 	of 	2025 	(" Section
113") 	granting 	immunity 	from 	certain 	Wage 	Act 	claims 	to
nonprofit 	higher 	education 	instit u tions . 	In 	September , 	2025 ,
defendant 	filed 	supplemental 	briefing 	(Docket 	No . 	34) 	contending
that 	he 	enactment 	of 	Section 	113 	requires 	the 	dismissal 	of 	all
of 	plaintiffs ' 	claims .
II. 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss
Defendant 	has 	moved 	to 	dismiss 	plaintiffs ' 	claims 	on 	the
grounds 	of 	both 	federal 	preemption 	and 	Section 	113 	immunity .
Because 	the 	Court 	agrees 	that 	plaintiffs ' 	claims 	are 	foreclosed
under 	Section 	113 , 	it 	declines 	to 	address 	the 	issue 	of 	federal
preemption .
A. Legal 	Standard
To 	survive 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	pursuant 	to 	Fed . R . Civ . P .
12(b) (6) , 	the 	plaintiff 	must 	state 	a 	claim 	for 	relief 	that 	is
actionable 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law 	and 	plausible 	on 	its 	face .
Ashcroft 	v . 	Iqbal , 	556 	U. S . 	662 , 	678 	(2009) . 	A c l aim 	is
facially 	plausible 	if , 	after 	accepting 	as 	true 	all 	non -
conclusory 	fact u al 	allegatio n s , 	the 	court 	can 	draw 	the
- 4-
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 11

reasonable 	inference 	that 	the 	defendant 	is 	liable . 	Ocasio -
Hernandez 	v . 	Fortuno-Burset , 	640 	F . 3d 	1 , 	12 	(1st 	Cir . 	2011)
B. Application
1. Applicability 	of 	Section 	113
Section 	113 	reads
Nonprofit 	institutions 	of higher education and
nonprofit 	organizations 	that 	comprise a 	health
care 	delivery 	system 	shall 	be 	immune 	from
liability with 	regard to 	any 	claim or 	cause 	of
action 	seeking 	a 	legal 	or 	equitable 	remedy 	or
other 	relief 	commenced 	between 	July 	1 , 	2024
and 	September 	30 , 	2028 , 	inclusive , 	that
alleges 	that 	the 	institution ' s 	or
organization ' s 	payment 	of 	wages 	on 	a 	month ly
basis 	or 	pursuant 	to 	any 	written 	policy ,
schedule , 	or 	agreement 	presented 	or 	made
available 	to 	an 	employee 	concerning 	payment
for 	work 	performed 	over 	an 	academic 	term
violated 	[ the 	Wage 	Act] ; 	provided , 	however ,
that 	earned wages 	shall 	have 	been paid in 	full
within 	6 	days 	of 	the 	termination 	of 	a 	pay
period 	occurring : 	(i) 	on 	a 	monthly 	basis ; 	or
(ii) 	pursuant 	to 	any 	written 	policy , 	schedule
or 	agreement 	presented 	to 	an 	employee
concerning 	payment 	for 	work 	performed 	over 	a
specific 	period 	or 	an 	academic 	term .
Plaintiffs 	contend 	that 	the 	statute 	does 	not 	prohibit 	their
claims 	because 	they 	were 	not 	paid 	earned 	wages 	within 	six 	days
of 	the 	termination 	of 	a 	pay 	period . 	They 	assert 	that
defendant ' s 	policy 	of 	paying 	class 	members 	in 	four 	equal
installments 	results 	in 	work 	performed 	in 	August 	and 	January 	not
being 	compensated 	until 	October 	and 	March , 	more 	than 	six 	days
after 	the 	associated 	monthly 	period 	has 	ended .
- 5-
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 11

That 	reasoning 	i s 	unavailing . 	While 	Section 	113 	includes
the 	requirement 	that 	wages 	be 	paid 	within 	six 	days 	of 	the
termination 	of 	a 	pay 	period , 	it 	also 	permits 	pay 	per iods 	to 	be
establi sh ed 	by 	a 	policy 	or 	schedule 	" concerning 	payment 	for 	work
performed 	ove r 	a 	specific 	period 	or 	an 	academic 	term ." 	Here ,
the 	appointment 	letters 	furnished 	to 	plaintiffs 	clearl y 	state
that 	payment 	for 	fall 	a n d 	spring 	semesters 	would 	be 	made 	i n
monthly 	ins tall ments 	from 	October 	through 	January 	and 	March
through 	June , 	respectively . 	Because 	plaintiffs 	have 	not 	alleged
any 	incomplete 	or 	late 	payments 	under 	that 	schedule , 	Section 	113
foreclo ses 	their 	claims .
2. Legality 	of 	Section 	113
Plaintiff s 	assert 	several 	arguments 	that 	Section 	113 	was
enacted 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	Massachus e tts 	and 	United 	States
Constitutions .
a. Article 	10 	of 	the 	Declaration 	of 	Rights 	of 	the
Massachusetts 	Constitution
Plaintiffs 	first 	assert 	that 	Article 	113 	violates 	Article
10 	of 	the 	Declaration 	of 	Rights 	to 	the 	Massachusetts
Constitution , 	which 	provides 	tha t
[e]ach 	individual 	of 	the 	society 	has 	a 	right
to 	be 	protected 	by 	it 	in 	the 	enjoyment 	of 	his
life , 	liberty , 	and 	propert y , 	according 	to
standing 	laws .
- 6-
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 6 of 11

..
That 	provision 	has 	been 	interpreted 	as 	denying 	the 	legislatu re
the 	ability 	to 	suspend 	a 	general 	law 	with 	respect 	to 	an
individ ual . 	Pa ddock 	v . 	Town 	of 	Brookline , 	347 	Mass . 	230 , 	236
( 1964 ) . 	Plaintiffs 	aver 	that 	Section 	113 	violates 	this
pri nci ple 	by 	exempting 	defendants 	from 	the 	Wage 	Act 	while
maintaining 	liability 	for 	" virtually 	every 	other 	emplo ye r 	in 	the
Commonwealth ." 	They 	suggest 	that 	the 	law 	immunizes 	exact l y 	s ix
defendants 	from 	liability , 	presumably 	referring 	to 	the 	six
universities 	facing 	Wage 	Act 	claims 	at 	the 	time 	Section 	1 13 	was
enacted .
That 	is 	hyperbole . 	Section 	113 	exempts 	all 	univers ities
and 	health 	care 	delivery 	systems 	from 	liability 	under 	these
specific 	Wage 	Act 	claims . 	While 	there 	may 	have 	been 	only 	six
pending 	lawsuits 	at 	the 	time 	of 	its 	enactment , 	the 	statute
forecloses 	future 	actions 	against 	all 	similarly 	situated
organizations .
Article 	10 	also 	requires 	that 	all 	statutes 	have 	s o me
legitimate 	public 	purpose 	that 	pred ominates 	over 	the 	benefits 	or
injuries 	it 	confers 	upon 	pri va te 	parties . 	Kienzler 	v . 	Dalkon
Shield 	Claimants 	Tr ., 	426 	Mass . 	87 , 	90-91 	(1997) . 	As 	an 	initial
matter , 	the 	Court 	de fer s 	to 	the 	legislature 	with 	respect 	to 	the
nece ssity 	and 	reasonableness 	of 	the 	policy . 	Dutra 	v . 	Trs. 	of
Bos . 	Univ ., 	96 	F . 4th 	15 , 	20 	(1st 	Cir . 	202 4) . 	To 	the 	extent 	that
r eview 	of 	the 	lawmakers ' 	ju dgm en t 	is 	necessary 	and 	appropriate ,
-7 -
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 7 of 11

..
the 	Court 	concludes 	that 	curtailing 	the 	financial 	impact 	of 	Wage
Act 	claims 	on 	nonprofit 	employers 	is 	a 	legitimate 	public
interest 	that 	outweighs 	the 	impact 	the 	law 	may 	have 	on 	private
parties . 	See 	Curtin - Wilding 	v . 	Trs . 	of 	Bos . 	Univ ., 	No . 	CV 	25 -
10432 - RGS , 	2025 	WL 	2469312 , 	at 	*3 	(D . 	Mass . 	Aug . 	27 , 	2025)
(finding 	the 	same) .
b. Retroactivity under 	the United 	States 	and
Massachusetts 	Constitutions
Plaintiffs 	next 	assert 	that 	Section 	113 	is 	impermissibly
retroactive 	under 	the 	United 	States 	Constitution 	and
Massachusetts 	Constitution . 	The 	retroactivity 	analysis 	is
identical 	under 	both 	frameworks . 	Dutra , 	96 	F . 4th 	at 	19 . 	The 	law
requires 	that 	a 	retroactive 	statute 	serve 	a 	legitimate
legislative 	purpose 	that 	is 	furthered 	by 	rational 	means . 	Id . 	To
that 	end , 	the 	parties 	agree 	that 	the 	Court 	should 	weigh 	the
following 	three 	factors :
Id . 	at 	20 .
( 1) 	the 	nature 	of 	the 	public 	interest 	which
explicitly 	or 	may 	have 	motivated 	the
Legislature 	to 	enact 	the 	retroact i ve 	statute ;
( 2) 	the 	nature 	of 	the 	rights 	affected
retroactively 	and 	the 	reasonableness 	of 	any
reliance 	expectations 	on 	those 	rig h ts ; 	and
(3) 	the 	extent 	or 	scope 	of 	the 	statutory
effect 	or 	i mpact , 	inc l uding 	whether 	the
statute 	is 	appropriate 	and 	narrowly 	tailored .
- 8 -
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 8 of 11

With 	respect 	to 	the 	first 	prong , 	the 	Court 	reaffirms 	its
finding 	that 	mitigating 	the 	fi nan cial 	impact 	on 	nonprofit
organization s 	is 	a 	legitimate 	policy motiva tio n 	underlying
Section 	113 . 	The 	record 	is 	clear 	that 	lawsuits 	under 	the 	Wage
Act 	wou ld 	have 	devastating 	financial 	effects 	upon 	those
institutions 	and 	it 	is 	certainly 	within 	the 	purvi ew 	of 	the
legislature 	to 	enact 	laws 	to 	mitigate 	such 	consequences .
The 	nature 	of 	the 	rights 	affected 	also 	weigh 	i n 	favor 	of
defendant . 	Parties 	challenging 	the 	reasonableness 	of 	a
retroactive 	sta t ute 	must 	demonstrate 	that 	their 	reliance 	on 	the
law 	was 	reasonable 	and 	that 	they 	would 	have 	acted 	differently
had 	they 	known 	of 	the 	enactment 	beforehand . 	Leibovich 	v .
Antonellis , 	410 	Mass . 	568 , 	578 , 	574 	N. E . 2d 	978 , 	985 	(1991)
Here , 	plaintiffs 	argue 	not 	only 	that 	they 	relied 	upon 	the
Wage 	Act 	but 	that 	it 	created 	a 	vested 	property 	right 	that 	cannot
be 	retroactively 	revoked . 	Not 	so . 	The 	rights 	infringed , 	if
any , 	emanate 	fro m statutory 	provisions 	of 	the 	Wage 	Act .
Plaintiffs 	have 	no 	viable 	claim because , 	as 	previously
explained , 	they 	do 	not 	purport 	to 	have 	been 	underpaid 	or 	paid
later 	than 	promised . 	And 	because 	v i ndication 	of 	those 	rights
was 	ill - defined , 	plaintiffs 	had 	no 	vested 	property 	interests 	and
reliance 	on 	them 	was 	therefore 	unreasonable .
Finally , 	the 	Court 	concludes 	that 	t he 	scope 	of 	S ection 	113
is 	n arrowly 	tailored 	to 	address 	the 	concerns 	of 	the 	legislature .
- 9-
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 9 of 11

' 	• 	r
The 	public 	policy 	underlying 	Section 	113 	is 	to 	protect 	specific
kinds 	of 	nonprofit 	institutions 	from 	potential 	damaging 	effects
of 	the 	Wage 	Act . 	To 	that 	end , 	Section 	113 	exempts 	from
li ability 	only 	nonprofit 	e mployers 	and 	only 	with 	respect 	to
technical 	violations 	of 	the 	law . 	Accordingly , 	after 	weighing
all 	three 	factors , 	the 	Court 	concludes 	that 	Section 	113 	is
constitutional .
c. Article 	11 	of 	the Massachusetts 	Declaration 	of
Rights.
Finally , 	plaintiffs 	aver 	that 	Section 	113 	violates 	Article
11 	of 	the 	Massachusetts 	Declaration 	of 	Rights , 	which 	guarantees
a 	certain 	remedy , 	by 	having 	recourse
laws , 	for 	all 	injuries 	or 	wrongs .
person , 	property , 	or 	character .
to 	the
[to]
They 	contend 	that 	Section 	113 	i mmunity 	denies 	them , 	and 	other
similarly 	situated 	plaintiffs , 	a 	remedy 	for 	claims 	that 	accrue
under 	the 	Wage 	Act .
As 	explained 	above , 	the 	in j ury 	at 	i ssue 	in 	this 	case 	is
lim ited 	to 	the 	statutory 	rights 	plaintiffs 	assert 	under 	the 	Wage
Act . 	Article 	11 	has 	never 	been 	interpreted 	as 	providing 	a
ve sted 	interest 	in 	a 	statute 	or 	as 	rendering 	any 	statut e
immutable . 	Decker 	v . 	Black 	& 	Decker 	Mfg . 	Co ., 	389 	Mass . 	35 , 	44 ,
449 	N . E . 2d 	641 , 	647 	(1983) . 	Plaintiffs ' 	Article 	11 	claim 	is 	not
viable .
-1 0-
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 10 of 11

ORDER
For 	the 	forgoing 	reasons , 	the 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	of
defendant 	Curry 	College 	(Docket 	No . 	22) 	is 	ALLOWED 	and 	the 	case
is 	DISMISSED.
So 	ordered.
Nathaniel 	M. 	Gorton
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
Dated : 	November /O 	, 	2025
- 11 -
Case 1:25-cv-10585-NMG Document 45 Filed 11/10/25 Page 11 of 11