I was recently "let go" (the company's classfication) from a position. I was an employee receiving a per-hour wage and had worked there nearly one year. I received a severance package of a lump-sum check with a letter stating that the amount was for 2 weeks of wages (not required by law) as well as my unused vacation and sick time (I think is required by law).

While I also received payment for the 2 week pay period prior to being let go, I was let go mid-week after working three full days. When I asked about expecting payment for these three days, as they were not reflected in the pay I had received or in the severance package, my former employer stated that he will not pay me for those hours that I worked because he is now considering them part of my severance package. When I replied that I believed that I should be paid for hours worked, he replied with a hostile email in which he indicated that he considered the discussion over and that he does not intend to pay me for those hours worked.

I have filed with unemployment.

Is this legal? Do I have any recourse--should I file with the AG's office?

Thanks in advance for your time and responses.

Massachusetts is one of the few states (almost but not quite the only state) where, in some circumstances (not all by any stretch), severance pay IS required by law. So before we go any further, please let me know the reason for the termination and how many other people were affected. I particularly need to know if there is a sale to another company pending.

BTW, just for clarification, payout of accrued but unused vacation is required in MA, but not unused sick days. (No state requires the payout of unused sick days unless promised by binding policy or contract.)

I was the only employee affected. There is not a sale pending. I was initially not given a reason for being let go as my boss stated that he was not required to give notice or reason. When asked, via email, initally he said that he felt that there was no longer a suitable position for me within the company. He has since stated that he felt I the job I was doing was not the right job for me and that is why I was let go (this despite working there nearly a year, having 2 raises, and not once being told that I was performing poorly).

He told me that severance was not required in my case, and that he was being very generous in his severance (which I do not dispute) but that is why he does not want to pay me for those hours worked.

Thanks for your replies.

He is correct that in your case severance is not required, but it was worth checking.

You got a generous severance package which was not required, and you got paid sick days which are also not required. I can see where he's coming from. You've been paid for more time than is actually due you.

Nonetheless, I think it would be at least worth your while to place a call to the AG's office and see what they have to say. If you were given a written severance agreement, have a copy of it with you when you call. The exact wording of such an agreement may make the difference as to what you may be due.

Thanks for your replies! I will contact the AG's office.

It is not legal to hold up payment for hours worked, nor is it legal to require a severance agreement in exchange for that pay. While your employer might consider his severance offer so generous as to include your final pay, he can not condition your receipt of that pay on signing any release agreement.

Now, you may decide that since you're not entitled to any severance at all, you'd rather wait for the severance agreement, because then you'd get a bigger check. But that's a choice. You might also decide that the amount of severance is too small to give the company a full release.

Alternatively, you can file a claim with the attorney general, and then institute a private action in order to recover possibly triple the amount owed. But, again, that's another choice.