Tam, et al. v. Federal Management Co., Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-093-17)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 13-02347-BLS1 SIEW-MEY TAM & another1 1 Mary Jane Raymond 2 d/b/a The Schochet Companies 3 Richard Henken, Peter Lewis, and David Flad 4 The individual defendants are alleged to be statutorily liable for FMC’sWage Act violations. 5 The defendants have also filed a separate motion for summary judgment on the claims asserted by Tam. That motion remains pendingand is not addressed in this Memorandum of Decision. vs. FEDERAL MANAGEMENT CO., INC.2 & others3 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF MARY JANE RAYMOND Plaintiffs Siew-Mey Tam and Mary Jane Raymond were formerly employed by Federal Management Co., Inc. (FMC) as property managers. Following the termination oftheiremployment, they brought this action against FMC, Richard Henken, David Flad, and Peter Lewis4alleging that they were misclassified as exempt employees under G.L. c. 151, § 1A and FMC failed to pay them for overtime hours worked. The case is presently before the Court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissingthe claims assertedagainst themby Raymond.5 For the following reasons, the motion is ALLOWED. BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed. FMC is a professional management company located in Braintree, Massachusetts. The 2 company manages commercial, retail, and residential properties, including low and moderate subsidized housing projects. One of the properties FMC manages is Weldon House, a 105-unit, low income apartment building in Greenfield, Massachusetts. From February 14, 1990 to March 3, 2011, Raymond worked at Weldon House as a property manager. FMC classifiedand paid Raymond as a salaried, exempt employee. She received a fixed weekly salary regardless of the number of hours that she worked during any week.FMC terminated Raymond’s employment on March 3, 2011. In June 2013, Tam, anotherFMCproperty manager whoworked at a different property andhad also beenterminated, filed a complaint in Superior Court alleging violationsof G. L. c. 151, §1A, the statute governing overtimepay. She brought her claimon behalf of herself and all similarly situated FMC property managers. More than a year later, the Court allowed a motion to substitute Tam’s complaintwith another complaint. The substitute complaint added Raymond as anamedplaintiff. Itwaspledfifteen counts:seven counts asserted claims on behalf ofTam and a putative class of similarly situated plaintiffsand eight counts were individual claims asserted by Raymond. In response, the defendants fileda motion to dismiss the complaint, which wasallowed in part and denied in part,in June 2015. The Court granted the motion as to Counts III-VIII and X-XIV but denied it as to Counts I, II, IX, and XV. Following that order, Raymond’s remaining claimsare her individual claims for overtime and wages under G. L. c. 151, § 1A and G. L. c. 149, § 148 (Counts I […]