COURT SAYS : PAY OPPONENT’S ATTORNEY’S BIG FEES
Massachusetts top Court vindicates the value of attorney’s work in Anti-SLAPP (MGL c 231 Sect 59H) and Wage Act (MGL c 149 sect 148-150) case. Hidalgo v Watch City Construction SJC 2026.
Facts Hidalgo, an hourly general laborer, sued his employer, Watch City Construction Corp., claiming he was not paid for four weeks of work. He sought $3,738.67 in lost wages, which automatically trebles under the Massachusetts Wage Act to $11,216.01. In response, the employer filed counterclaims against the employee, alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Hidalgo asked the court to dismiss these counterclaims under the state's "anti-SLAPP" statute, arguing that the employer was simply retaliating against his lawful, protected right to petition the court for his unpaid wages.
Court process The Appeals Court agreed and ordered the dismissal of the employer's counterclaims. Hidalgo's attorneys then requested $67,361.25 in legal fees solely for their appellate work fighting the counterclaims. The Appeals Court initially slashed this fee in half because the underlying wage claim was so small, prompting the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to review the case to determine if that fee reduction was appropriate.
Issue 1: Attempted resistance to a Wage Act claim via counterclaim thwarted by the anti-SLAPP law
Issue: Can an employer successfully defend against an employee's Wage Act lawsuit by filing counterclaims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution?
Holding: Not in this case, retaliatory counterclaims dismissed.
Reasons: An employee's initial lawsuit to recover unpaid wages is protected petitioning activity. The anti-SLAPP statute gives a special procedural vehicle to quickly dismiss claims that seek to impose liability on someone solely for exercising this constitutional right to petition. Consequently, the employer's retaliatory counterclaims were struck down early in the litigation.
Comment: Employers must be extremely cautious when considering counterclaims against an employee who files a Wage Act lawsuit. Filing retaliatory claims like malicious prosecution or abuse of process can quickly trigger the anti-SLAPP statute, which is specifically designed to protect individuals of modest means from being subjected to retaliatory legal action by those with greater resources. Instead of providing strategic leverage, these counterclaims can easily backfire, resulting in the employer's claims being dismissed and the employer being ordered to pay the employee's legal fees.
Issue 2: in both anti-SLAPP suits and in Wage Act cases the attorney's fees permitted law by can sting even in pursuit of small amounts of client recovery.
Issue: Should a court reduce an award of attorney's fees for successfully defending against an anti-SLAPP counterclaim simply because the employee's original unpaid wage claim is for a small amount of money?
Holding: No, the fee reduction in this case was reversed.
Reasons:, attorney's fees are calculated by multiplying the reasonable number of hours spent by a reasonable hourly rate. The SJC found that the legal work required to navigate anti-SLAPP issues is notoriously difficult, and this complexity does not depend on the dollar value of the original wage dispute. Therefore, reducing the fee award based on the low dollar value of the worker's lost wages impermissibly minimizes the importance of Wage Act claims and undermines the Legislature's intent to encourage competent lawyers to take on these necessary cases.
Comment: Employers face severe financial exposure in wage disputes, regardless of the size of the original claim. Even if an employee's unpaid wage claim is minor—in this case, under $4,000 in actual lost wages—an employer can end up liable for tens of thousands of dollars in the employee's attorney's fees. Statutes like the Wage Act MGL c 149 sect 148-150 and the anti-SLAPP MGL c 231 Sect 59H law contain robust fee-shifting provisions specifically designed to provide a powerful disincentive for employers to withhold wages and to make it financially viable for lawyers to represent workers of limited means.