Wage Theft Cases

Joanne Silvestris vs. Tantasqua Regional School District (and a companion case). Hampden. March 7, 2006. May 18, 2006. Present: Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, & Cordy, JJ. Anti-Discrimination Law, Employment, Sex. Employment, Discrimination. Limitations, Statute of. School and School Committee, Compensation of personnel. Practice, Civil, Findings by judge. An action brought by female teachers (plaintiffs) against a regional school district (defendant), claiming violations of the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, G. L. c. 149, § 105A, was not barred by the applicable six-month limitations period contained in G. L. c. 151B, § 5, where the statute was tolled by operation of 804 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.10(2) (1999), when the plaintiffs entered into grievance proceedings with the defendant concerning the alleged discriminatory act within six months of the conduct complained of, and subsequently filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination within six months of the outcome of those proceedings. [764-770] Female teachers (plaintiffs) were not entitled to prevail on their claims under the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, G. L. c. 149, § 105A, against a regional school district (district), alleging that the plaintiffs’ starting salaries were set lower than those of male teachers because the plaintiffs were given less credit for prior work experience, where the evidence demonstrated that the superintendent of the district allocated credit for prior work experience without any well-defined and articulated criteria, and that such allocation did not have a disproportionately discriminatory impact on women. [770-777] Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 28, 2000. The cases were heard by Judd J. Carhart, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Maria E. DeLuzio (Karen W. Peters with her) for Tantasqua Regional School District. Cornelius J. Moriarty, II, for for Joanne Silvestris & another. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Danielle Y. Vanderzanden & Douglass C. Lawrence for Associated Industries of Massachusetts. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Catherine C. Ziehl, & Zoe Butler-Stark, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General. Sara Smolik, Robert Mantell, & Elizabeth A. Rodgers for National Employment Lawyers Association, Massachusetts Chapter. Valerie A. Goncalves vs. Tantasqua Regional School District. Spina, J. Joanne Silvestris and Valerie Goncalves (collectively, plaintiffs) are teachers in the technical division of Tantasqua regional high school (Tantasqua). On July 14, 1999, each filed a discrimination charge against the Tantasqua regional school district (school district) with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), claiming that the school district had violated the Massachusetts antidiscrimination statute, G. L. c. 15IB, and the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA), G. L. c. 149, § 105A, by “failing to pay [them] salary and benefits equal to what male employees received from work of comparable character.” Eleven months later, Silvestris and Goncalves each filed a complaint against the school district in the Superior Court, alleging only that the school district’s conduct in paying them less than their male colleagues constituted wage discrimination in violation of MEPA. The thrust of the plaintiffs’ allegations was that, when they were hired by the superintendent of schools for the school district (superintendent), their starting salaries were set lower than the starting salaries of male teachers in the technical division because they were given less credit for their prior work experience. In its answer to each complaint, the school district asserted, as an affirmative defense, that the plaintiffs’ actions were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In response to a motion of the school district, agreed to by the plaintiffs, the two actions were consolidated. The plaintiffs then amended their complaints to add claims alleging that the school district’s conduct in establishing their starting salaries had violated G. L. c. 15IB and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (equal rights act), G. L. c. 93, § 102. The school district again raised the statute of hmitations as an affirmative defense in its answers. The parties presented their evidence to the judge in a jury-waived trial. At the close of all the evidence, the plaintiffs’ claims under the equal rights act were dismissed pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. R 41 (b) (2), 365 Mass. 803 (1974). After the judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 52 (a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996), he entered judgment for the school district with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims under G. L. c. 151B, and stated that, after a further hearing on damages, judgment would enter for the plaintiffs on their MEPA claims. He concluded that the plaintiffs’ charges had been timely filed with the MCAD, and that the school district had engaged in wage discrimination in violation of G. L. c. 149, § 105A, by failing to give the plaintiffs credit for their prior work experience in a manner that was comparable to the way in which male teachers had been given credit for prior work experience. The judge subsequently awarded damages in the amount of $60,370 to Silvestris, damages in the amount of $115,811.44 to Goncalves, and attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $42,893.08. The school district appealed from the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their MEPA claims, including the allowance of liquidated damages and the assessment of legal fees, and the cases were transferred from the Appeals Court on our own motion. The school district now contends that (1) the plaintiffs’ MEPA claims were barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the judge’s findings that the plaintiffs were paid less than their male colleagues for prior experience were clearly erroneous; (3) the judge erred in calculating the plaintiffs’ damages by awarding back pay to their dates of hire, rather than limiting back pay to the six months preceding the filing of their MCAD charges and by using the maximum salary level when calculating their back pay; and (4) the judge erred in calculating the amount of attorney’s fees by failing to take into consideration the fact that the school district prevailed on two of the plaintiffs’ three claims, and by fading to deduct allegedly vague, duplicative, and unreasonable fees. For the reasons that follow, we now vacate the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their wage discrimination claims and direct the entry of judgment for the school district on those claims. 1. Statutory framework. General Laws c. 149, § 105A, states, in pertinent part: “No employer shall discriminate in any way in the payment of wages as between the sexes, or pay any person in his employ salary or wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for work of like or comparable character or work on like or comparable operations; provided, however, that variations in rates of pay shall not be prohibited when based upon a difference in seniority. Any employer who violates any provision of this section shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid wages, and in an additional equal amount of liquidated damages.” The purpose of this statute is “to remedy pay inequities between male and female employees in comparable positions.” Jancey v. School Comm. of Everett, 421 Mass. 482, 497 (1995), S.C., 427 Mass. 603 (1998). 2. Factual background. Teacher salaries at Tantasqua are governed by the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement (agreement). The agreement states, in relevant part: “Initial salary levels of teachers new to the [school district] shall be set by the [superintendent in accordance with existing salary schedules.” The superintendent assigns each new teacher a level and year designation from the salary schedule set forth in an appendix to the agreement, which is based on a matrix reflecting educational achievement and years of experience. Level I covers one through three years of experience, Level II covers four through nine years of experience, and Level in covers ten and more years of experience. A teacher would progress through the levels in increments equal to the number of years taught. For example, the designation “Level I, Year 1” would signify that a teacher was in his or her first year of teaching, whereas the designation “Level II, Year 5” would signify that a teacher was in his or her fifth year of teaching. While an entry-level teacher could expect to reach the maximum salary category of “Level III” in ten years, a new teacher who began at a higher level (due to prior experience) could expect to reach the maximum salary category sooner, depending on the level and year designation assigned by the superintendent. In June, 1993, Silvestris applied for a newly created position at Tantasqua as an allied health teacher in the technical division. The job was designed to prepare students for careers in nursing. Silvestris had experience in this field prior to applying for the Tantasqua position. In 1972, she received an associate’s degree in nursing from Springfield Technical Community College, passed the State licensing examination, and became a registered nurse. For the next six years, Silvestris worked as a nurse at Holyoke Hospital and provided instruction to student nurses. In 1980, she took a position with the Westover Job Corps, where she taught students in the nursing assistants program and coordinated job-related training for students already under the direction of employers. In 1986, Silvestris began a new job at Holyoke Community College as a job developer, working with business leaders to establish employment opportunities for business, computer science, and secretarial science students. Silvestris remained at Holyoke Community College for two years. During this same time period, she attended Westfield State College, from which she received a bachelor of science degree in occupational education in 1991. Silvestris also obtained a vocational teaching certificate in the field of allied health. After interviewing for the position at Tantasqua in June, 1993, with the director of its technical division, Silvestris met with the superintendent, David Roach, to discuss her educational background, her prior work experience, and her salary. According to Silvestris, the superintendent said that she would receive credit for her teaching time at the Westover Job Corps because it involved the nursing assistants program and because the students there were generally the same age as high school students. However, she would not get credit for her time at Holyoke Community College because that was postsecondary experience. Further, according to Silvestris, the superintendent told her that the school district did not give credit for prior work experience “in the trade.” On July 19, 1993, the superintendent notified Silvestris that she would be hired for the 1993-1994 school year, that she would be placed in the “vocational certificate plus bachelor’s degree” education category, and that her starting salary would be established at “Level n, Year 6.” This meant that she was given credit for five years of experience. Silvestris accepted a contract with the school district. At the time she was hired, there were six male teachers and no female teachers in the technical division, and she had the highest starting salary of any teacher who had been hired for the technical division to that point in time. Silvestris’s ongoing job responsibilities were essentially the same as those of her male colleagues, although she was charged initially with the task of developing the allied health program for the freshmen and sophomore classes and securing its certification by the Department of Public Health and the Department of Education. In 1997, Silvestris reached “Level III” status, the highest classification, and she has remained in that salary category. In June, 1995, Goncalves applied for a position at Tantasqua as an allied health teacher in the technical division. Like Silvestris, she had experience in the field of nursing prior to applying for this position. In 1975, she received a bachelor of science degree in nursing from Fitchburg State College, passed the State licensing examination, and became a registered nurse. For the next four years, Goncalves worked as a nurse at Ludlow Hospital. In 1979, she took a position as a registered nurse at Mercy Hospital in Springfield where she provided direct patient care and supervised nursing students. In 1984, Goncalves began a new job working as a nurse in a private medical office. She left private practice in 1994 and joined the staff of the Hampden County house of correction, where her duties included providing patient care and performing health screenings for newly admitted inmates. In addition, Goncalves taught, for one year, at the Lower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative, where she prepared students for certification as nursing assistants and home health aides. Goncalves also obtained a vocational teaching certificate in the field of nursing. After interviewing for the position at Tantasqua with both the outgoing and incoming directors of its technical division, Goncalves met with the superintendent, Rosemary Joseph, to discuss her educational background, her prior work experience, and her salary. According to Goncalves, the superintendent initially told her that she would not be given credit for her prior work experience and, therefore, would be offered a salary commensurate with that of an entry-level teacher. Goncalves did not accept this offer. Subsequently, the outgoing technical director notified Goncalves that she would be hired for the 1995-1996 school year, that she would be placed in the “bachelor’s degree” education category, and that her starting salary would be established at “Level n, Year 4.” This meant that she was given credit for three years of experience. Goncalves accepted a contract with the school district. At the time Goncalves was hired, Silvestris was the only other female teacher in the technical division. Goncalves’s ongoing job responsibilities were essentially the same as those of her male colleagues, although she initially was charged with the task of developing the new allied health program for the junior and senior classes and securing its certification by the Department of Public Health and the Department of Education. In 2001, Goncalves reached “Level III” status, and she has remained in that salary category. In August, 1998, the school district hired Gary Manuel as a technology teacher at Tantasqua for the 1998-1999 school year. He had four years of prior teaching experience at a public middle school and eighteen years of work experience as a general contractor. Manuel was placed in the “master’s degree plus 30” education category, and his starting salary was established at “Level II, Year 8.” Around this time, the plaintiffs spoke with their male colleagues in the technical division, including Manuel, about whether their years of trade experience had been credited toward teaching experience, thereby enabling them to start at higher salaries. Based on these conversations, the plaintiffs came to believe that, when they were hired, they were started at lower salary levels than male colleagues with purportedly comparable backgrounds. Consequently, on September 22, 1998, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the president of the Tantasqua Teachers’ Association (association) expressing their concern that they had been subjected to sexual discrimination when their initial pay grades were established. In particular, they asserted that when they were hired, there was no mention of their prior work experience counting toward teaching experience. After receiving the September 22, 1998, letter, the association scheduled a “Level Two” grievance hearing with the superintendent, the purpose of which was to hear the plaintiffs’ complaint and their proposed remedy. At this point, the plaintiffs did not know the starting salaries of the other teachers in the technical division, their levels of educational achievement, or their prior work experience. The grievance hearing was held in November, 1998, and was attended by the plaintiffs, a representative from the association, a representative from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the superintendent, and the school district’s legal counsel. According to the superintendent, the plaintiffs declined to proceed with the hearing when they learned of the presence of the school district’s legal counsel. The association subsequently requested from the superintendent, on several occasions, the personnel records of all of the teachers in the school district. In May, 1999, the plaintiffs received a document listing the names of nine teachers in the technical division (including themselves), their degree statuses, their positions, their dates of hire, their level and year designations, and their starting salaries. Once they had this specific information, the plaintiffs commenced the present actions. 3. Statute of limitations. The school district first contends that the judge erred in failing to conclude that the plaintiffs’ MEPA claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. It asserts that the plaintiffs were required to file their complaints with the MCAD within six months of the alleged discriminatory act. See G. L. c. 15IB, § 5. However, the plaintiffs did not file their charges with the MCAD until July 14, 1999, which, according to the school district, was too late. The school district further contends that the judge erred in determining that the trigger for the statute of limitations was April, 1999, when the plaintiffs’ suspicions of discrimination were confirmed by documentary evidence as to the starting salaries of teachers in the technical division. Relying on Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521 (2001), the school district asserts that the trigger for the statute of limitations should have been the date that the plaintiffs were aware, or reasonably should have been aware, of the alleged discriminatory action. In the school district’s opinion, the plaintiffs knew of their claims in September, 1998, when they spoke to their male colleagues about their starting salaries and, then, when they wrote a letter to the association expressing their concerns. Thus, the school district argues that it was in September, 1998, that the statute of limitations began to run on the plaintiffs’ claims, and their charges should have been filed with the MCAD by March, 1999. The plaintiffs agree with the school district, as do we, that the governing statute of limitations was six months. When they filed their charges with the MCAD, the plaintiffs alleged that the school district had discriminated against them in violation of both G. L. c. 151B and G. L. c. 149, § 105A, by failing to pay them in a manner that was comparable to their male colleagues. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claims fell within the purview of the statute of limitations set forth in c. 151B. General Laws c. 151B, § 5, requires that a complaint alleging wrongful conduct be filed with the MCAD within six months after the alleged act of discrimination. See Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., supra at 531; School Comm. of Brockton v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 423 Mass. 7, 10 (1996); Jancey v. School Comm. of Everett, 421 Mass. 482, 497-498 (1995). The filing of a timely charge of discrimination with the MCAD is a prerequisite to the filing of such an action in the Superior Court. See Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., supra at 531 n.11; Andrews v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 423 Mass. 1021 (1996); Charland v. Muzi Motors, Inc., 417 Mass. 580, 583-584 (1

Corrie Wiedmann vs. The Bradford Group, Inc., & others. Middlesex. April 4, 2005. July 21, 2005. Present: Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Sosman, & Cordy, JJ. Labor, Wages, Failure to pay wages. Contract, Employment. Practice, Civil, Preservation of evidence, Summary judgment, Damages, Attorney’s fees, Answer, Amendment. Damages, Breach of contract, Attorney’s fees. Statute, Construction. Discussion of the weekly wage law, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148-159C. [703-704] Discussion of the statutory duty of employers to keep certain employee records for two years. [704] In a civil action that the plaintiff former employee brought against the defendants (the company that formerly employed the plaintiff and three individuals) for payment of commissions that the plaintiff claimed the defendants owed her, the judge hearing a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence did not abuse her discretion in ruling that the defendants, who had not retained the plaintiffs employment records, could not, without documentary support, challenge the plaintiffs calculations as to her commissions or assert that the plaintiff was overpaid, where the defendants were on notice of the plaintiffs claim prior to the destruction of the records; where the destruction of the records unfairly prejudiced the plaintiff, both in proving her case and in refuting the defendants’ claims that she was overpaid, and put an unfair burden on her to show what the documents would have shown if they were produced; and where the defendants had a statutory duty to maintain employee records relevant to the payment of wages [704-707]; moreover, the judge properly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, where, without testimony concerning the defendants’ challenges to the plaintiffs calculations, all that was before the judge were mere assertions by the defendants concerning the terms of the plaintiffs oral employment contract [707-708]. In a civil action for payment of commissions allegedly owed to the plaintiff, the former employee of the defendants, the judge granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff correctly determined that the weekly wage law, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148-159C, applied, where there was no dispute concerning the total from which deductions would be taken or about the applicable formulas and deductions other than whether a deduction for group payroll should always be taken, and thus, the amount owed the plaintiff was arithmetically determinable. [708-709] In a civil action for payment of commissions allegedly owed to the plaintiff, the former employee of the defendants, the judge granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff erred in ruling that G. L. c. 149, § 150, the weekly wage act, required her to award treble damages to the plaintiff; therefore, this court vacated the award and remanded for reconsideration whether treble damages were warranted. [709-710] The judge in a civil action for payments of commissions allegedly owed to the plaintiff erred in holding one individual defendant liable as an employer under the weekly wage act, G. L. c. 149, § 148, where the individual defendant had a management role, but where there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law that the individual defendant directed and participated to a substantial degree in formulating the corporation’s policy. [710-712] In a civil action, the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to amend their answer to add counterclaims, where the motion was filed over a year after the deadline for motions pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. R 15, after the conclusion of discovery, and only a few days before the matter was scheduled to be disposed; and where the judge rejected the reason given for the failure to add counterclaims, secretarial inadvertence, given that the defendants had filed two answers with the same omission prior to making the motion. [712-713] Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 14, 2001. Motions to amend the answer and for sanctions for spoliation of evidence were heard by Janet L. Sanders, J.; the case was heard by Leila R. Kern, J., on a motion for summary judgment; entry of separate and final judgment was ordered by Julian T. Houston, J., and a motion for attorney’s fees was heard by him. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Danielle E. deBenedictis for the defendants. Kevin S. Sullivan for the plaintiff. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, & Karla E. Zarbo, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Doing business as BBA Technical Services. T. Earl Harvey, also known as Thomas E. Harvey; Michael J. O’Mara; and Bruce Higginbotham. Ireland, J. This case involves a dispute concerning the formula that was to be used to calculate Come Wiedmann’s (plaintiff’s) commissioned wages pursuant to the terms of an oral employment contract. The dispute led to the plaintiff’s commencing an action in September, 2001, asserting claims under the common law and G. L. c. 149, § 148, the weekly payment of wages law (weekly wage law). In the course of the lawsuit, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants did not retain her employment records. On February 5, 2003, she filed a motion for sanctions based on the defendants’ spoliation of evidence relevant to proving the terms of the oral contract. A Superior Court judge granted the plaintiffs motion and ordered that, absent documentary support, the defendants could not challenge the plaintiffs calculations of her earned commissions or assert that the plaintiff was overpaid. The judge invited the plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment, which she did. A second judge allowed the motion for summary judgment, held the three individual defendants fiable pursuant to G. L. c. 149, § 148, and granted the plaintiff treble damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. In granting the plaintiff treble damages, the judge stated that she was required to do so by the statute. G. L. c. 149, § 150. The defendants appealed, asserting that it was error to (1) grant the motion for sanctions for spoliation without which summary judgment would not have been granted; (2) grant the motion for treble damages and attorney’s fees; (3) enter judgment against Bruce Higginbotham; and (4) deny the defendants’ motion to amend their answer to assert counterclaims against the plaintiff. We transferred this case from the Appeals Court on our own motidn. We affirm the allowance of the plaintiff’s motions for sanctions for spoliation, summary judgment, and for attorney’s fees and costs, and affirm the denial of the defendants’ motion to amend their answer. Because we conclude that the statute does not mandate the entering of treble damages for the plaintiff, we vacate the award of treble damages and remand the case to the Superior Court for reconsideration of the issue. We further conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Bruce Higginbotham was an employer under G. L. c. 149, § 148. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment against him. Facts and procedural background. We set out the essential facts, which are not disputed, leaving certain details for our discussion of the issues. The plaintiff worked for the defendants from February, 1999, until September 22, 2000, when she voluntarily left. Thomas Earl Harvey was the president, treasurer, clerk, and owner of The Bradford Group, Inc.; Michael J. O’Mara was the office manager and ran the company; Bruce Higginbotham was a group leader and general manager of the company. In April, 2000, the plaintiff was given a commission-only position as a recruiter in a group under Higginbotham. Commission statements from May through September, 2000, reveal that the plaintiff drew money against her commission payments. The terms of the plaintiff’s employment contract were oral, and the commission structure was set by O’Mara. We need not set out the specific details of how the plaintiff’s commissions were calculated, because the only dispute about their calculation is whether group payroll always had to be deducted before the plaintiff’s commissions were determined. The plaintiff claims that the only time that group payroll was to be deducted was if a monthly goal was not reached. In a deposition, she stated that this was a moot point because the monthly goal was always met. Consistent with the plaintiff’s position, monthly commission statements showing the calculations of her commissions for May through August, 2000, do not reflect any group payroll deductions. On October 4, 2000, after the plaintiff had left her job and inquired about commissions owed her, she had a meeting with O’Mara and Higginbotham. In that meeting, O’Mara told her that there had been an error in the calculation of her commission payments for September — group payroll had not been deducted. O’Mara said that he reworked the figures in order to correct them. Accordingly, the September commission statement, unlike previous commission statements, shows a deducfor group payroll and a balance owed to the plaintiff of approximately $1,000, for which she was given a check. O’Mara told the plaintiff that no other commissions would be forthcoming. In the course of the lawsuit, the defendants recalculated the plaintiff’s earlier commissions statements, and claim that the plaintiff was overpaid a total of $8,486.19. On November 10, 2000, through counsel, the plaintiff sent a letter demanding full payment of commissions she claimed she was owed. In the letter, she also requested copies of all of her records, including employment records, commission schedules, and records of fees received. Although O’Mara testified in a deposition and an affidavit that the defendants responded to the letter through counsel, the plaintiff testified that she never received a response from the defendants. The record does not contain a copy of any response to the plaintiffs letter. As required, the plaintiff contacted the Attorney General’s office and was given permission to pursue the case as a civil matter. G. L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150. On September 14, 2001, the plaintiff, with new counsel, commenced this action. Her accompanying motion for an ex parte trustee attachment in the amount of $50,000 was granted. During the course of discovery, the defendants were unable to provide the plaintiff’s employment records to her, which led to the plaintiff’s filing a motion for sanctions for spoliation. The records were kept electronically, but paper copies of commission statements and the reports used to determine commissions were also made. These paper records were lost or destroyed after the defendants were on notice that the plaintiff had a potential claim against them. Moreover, the electronic copies were unretrievable because the computer software that was used to read the documents was corrupted and the company that created the software was out of business. The defendants stated that they did not believe that the plaintiff would take any further action against them because she did not contact them after her attorney sent them the letter demanding payment and records. The defendants vacated their Boston office in December, 2001. As discussed, the defendants appealed from the decisions granting the plaintiff’s motions for sanctions for spoliation, summary judgment, treble damages, and attorney’s fees against all defendants, as well as from denial of their motion to amend their answer to add counterclaims. Discussion. 1. G.L. c. 149, §§ 148-159C. One purpose of the weekly wage law is to ensure that employees receive prompt payment of wages. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner of Labor & Indus., 340 Mass. 144, 147 (1959). See Boston Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n v. Boston, 435 Mass. 718, 720 (2002) (clear purpose of weekly wage law is to prevent unreasonable detention of wages). General Laws c. 149, § 150, limits the defenses available to an employer for nonpayment of wages and permits a private right of action. General Laws c. 149, § 148, applies, “so far as apt, to the payment of commissions when the amount of such commissions, less allowable or authorized deductions, has been definitely determined and has become due and payable to such employee.” See Commonwealth v. Savage, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 714, 716 (1991). Relevant cases have addressed whether a plaintiffs commission structure allowed him or her to bring an action under the weekly wage law. See, e.g., id. at 716-718 (holding that weekly wage law did not apply to real estate broker whose commissions were episodic, and where broker functioned, and filed taxes, as independent contractor); Cum-pata v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 164, 168 (D. Mass. 2000) (holding that weekly wage law did not apply to commissions earned beyond base salary under separate contract). Although the Savage court inferred from the title of the weekly wage law that it applied to commissions that were paid on a weekly basis, nothing in the weekly wage law itself requires the weekly payment of wages. Id. at 716. Rather, it sets out different payment deadlines for different types of employees. G. L. c. 149, § 148. The paragraph of § 148 that is relevant to commissions states that it applies “so far as apt” to commissions that are definitely determined and have become due and payable. The parties do not dispute the applicability of this particular provision of the weekly wage law. See generally Barthel v. One Community, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 125, 126-127 (D. Mass. 2002) (rejecting defendants’ argument that weekly wage law applied only to weekly payment of commissions for purposes of motion to dismiss). However, as we discuss, infra, the defendants argue that the sum owed the plaintiff was not “definitely determined” and, therefore, the weekly wage law does not apply. 2. Employers’ statutory duties. Employers are required to keep, for two years, records concerning their employees’ working hours and payment of wages, and the Attorney General is entitled to access to these records. G. L. c. 151, § 15. The Attorney General has the authority to demand access to any documents that bear on a question of wages. G. L. c. 151, § 3. Moreover, any employer who fails to keep the requisite records is subject to a civil citation or order pursuant to the weekly wage law. G. L. c. 151, § 19. These requirements create a presumption that the records are relevant to disputes over wages brought either by the Attorney General or by private parties. See G. L. c. 149, §§ 27C, 148, 150. These duties apply to the defendants. 3. Issues, a. Spoliation. The defendants argue that it was error to grant the motion for sanctions for spoliation, without which summary judgment would not have been granted. As discussed, the sanction imposed was that the defendants were precluded from challenging the plaintiff’s calculations or asserting that the plaintiff was overpaid unless they produced supporting documentation. Because they could not provide that documentary support, the order had the effect of precluding the oral testimony of witnesses to contest these issues. The defendants argue that because the agreement concerning the calculation of the plaintiff’s commissions was oral, it does not matter whether the plaintiff’s employment records are available, because the documents would have no bearing on the issue in the case. Indeed, they concede that the documents would support only the plaintiff’s case, because the defendants did not apply the contested deductions to the plaintiff’s commissions until the alleged error was discovered by O’Mara after the plaintiff left the defendants’ employ. They argue further that the documents were lost or destroyed pursuant to the closing of the defendants’ Boston office and the “breakdown” of the defendants’ computer, and thus, the sanction was too severe. They also argue that, in any event, oral testimony would be the only way to determine the facts in this case. “The destruction of relevant evidence . . . has a pernicious effect on the truth-finding function of our courts.” Fletcher v. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., 437 Mass. 544, 553 (2002). The doctrine of spoliation allows a court to impose sanctions and remedies for the destruction of evidence in civil litigation, “based on the premise that a party who has negligently or intentionally lost or destroyed evidence known to be relevant for an upcoming legal proceeding should be held accountable for any unfair prejudice that results.” Keene v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., 439 Mass. 223, 234 (2003) (default appropriate against hospital that lost records critical to plaintiffs case). See Kippenhan v. Chaulk Servs., Inc., 428 Mass. 124, 127 (1998) (spoliation sanction appropriate where reasonable person would realize that evidence might be relevant to possible action). “In the spoliation context... a judge has broad discre-tian to impose a variety of sanctions against the defendant for the breach of [a] statutory duty . . . .” Keene v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., supra at 235. “[Ejxclusion of evidence both sanctions the party responsible for destroying certain evidence and remedies the unfairness that such spoliation created.” Gath v. M/A-Com, Inc., 440 Mass. 482, 488 (2003). See Kippenhan v. Chaulk Servs., Inc., supra at 128 (exclusion of evidence as sanction for spoliation is “minority position”; most jurisdictions only allow trier of fact to draw unfavorable inference from spoliation of evidence). However, the sanction should be narrowly “addressed to the precise unfairness that would otherwise result.” Keene v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., supra at 235, quoting Fletcher v. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., supra at 550. In this case, the judge did not abuse her discretion by ruling that the defendants, without documentary support, could not challenge the plaintiff’s calculations or assert that the plaintiff was overpaid. See Gath v. M/A-Com, Inc., supra at 491 (spoliation sanction reviewed under abuse of discretion standard). The judge found that the defendants were on notice of the plaintiffs claim when they received the letter from the plaintiff’s attorney in 2000, “within weeks” of the plaintiff’s leaving the defendants’ employ. That letter not only notified them of a potential claim for commissions, but also requested employment records, which still existed at the time the letter was sent. The judge found that the defendants nevertheless destroyed the documents, offering as their only excuse that they did not think the plaintiff would be filing a claim against them. Despite the defendants’ assertion that the lost records, in any event, did not contain any relevant information, there is support in the record for the judge’s finding that the records contained “commission statements and worksheets used to calculate commissions.” See Keene v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., supra at 237 (absent evidence to contrary, judge entitled to make adverse inference that missing records would aid plaintiffs case). The judge was correct in holding that the destruction of the documents unfairly prejudiced the plaintiff, both in proving her case and in refuting the defendants’ claims that she was overpaid. In addition, the destruction of the documents put an unfair burden on the plaintiff to show what the documents would have shown if they were produced. Moreover, the defendants had a statutory duty to maintain records relevant to payment of wages. In these circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion. See Keene v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., supra at 237 (concluding default against hospital that lost records critical to plaintiff’s case appropriate). b. Summary judgment. We need not belabor a discussion of the appropriateness of summary judgment. The defendants’ only argument is that it was not appropriate for the court to sanction them for spoliation, which we have addressed. The record does not cont