Is Hazard Pay Required By Law in Massachusetts?
Full Question:
Answer:
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not address the subject of hazard pay, except to require that it be included as part of a federal employee's regular rate of pay in computing the employee's overtime pay. Hazard pay may be paid for work done under hazardous conditions or imposing a physical hardship. State law only allows for indemnification of emergency medical technicians in certain cases (see statute below). Otherwise, it will be a matter of contract law according to the terms of any applicable employment contract or union agreement.
If you wish to use the legal system to resolve your dispute, you may want to review the following general information regarding contract law and breach of contract actions:
Contracts are agreements that are legally enforceable. A contract is an agreement between two parties that creates an obligation to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. The purpose of a contract is to establish the terms of the agreement by which the parties have fixed their rights and duties. An oral contract is an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially written. An oral contract may generally be enforced the same as a written agreement. However, it is much more difficult with an oral contract to prove its existence or the terms. Oral contracts also usually have a shorter time period within which a person seeking to enforce their contract right must sue. A written contract generally provides a longer time to sue than for breach of an oral contract. Contracts are mainly governed by state statutory and common (judge-made) law and private law. Private law generally refers to the terms of the agreement between the parties, as parties have freedom to override many state law requirements regarding formalities of contracts. Each state has developed its own common law of contracts, which consists of a body of jurisprudence developed over time by trial and appellate courts on a case-by-case basis.
An unjustifiable failure to perform all or some part of a contractual duty is a breach of contract. A legal action for breach of contract arises when at least one party's performance does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damage or other types of measurable injury. A lawsuit for breach of contract is a civil action and the remedies awarded are designed to place the injured party in the position they would be in if not for the breach. Remedies for contractual breaches are not designed to punish the breaching party. The five basic remedies for breach of contract include the following: money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the net gain that would have accrued but for the breach. The type of breach governs the extent of damages that may be recovered.
Restitution is a remedy designed to restore the injured party to the position occupied prior to the formation of the contract. Parties seeking restitution may not request to be compensated for lost profits or other earnings caused by a breach. Instead, restitution aims at returning to the plaintiff any money or property given to the defendant under the contract. Plaintiffs typically seek restitution when contracts they have entered are voided by courts due to a defendant's incompetence or incapacity.
Rescission is the name for the remedy that terminates the contractual duties of both parties, while reformation is the name for the remedy that allows courts to change the substance of a contract to correct inequities that were suffered. In order to have a rescission, both parties to the contract must be placed in the position they occupied before the contract was made. Courts have held that a party may rescind a contract for fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, material breach in performance of a promise, or mistake, among other grounds.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels one party to perform, as nearly as practicable, his or her duties specified by the contract. Specific performance is available only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the breach.
Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. Promissory estoppel arises from a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forebearance in binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Detrimental reliance is a term commonly used to force another to perform their obligations under a contract, using the theory of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel may apply when a promise was made; reliance on the promise was reasonable or foreseeable; there was actual and reasonable reliance on the promise; the reliance was detrimental; and injustice can only be prevented by enforcing the promise. Detrimental reliance must be shown to involve reliance that is reasonable, which is a determination made on an individual case-by-case basis, taking all factors into consideration. Detrimental means that some type of harm is suffered.
Reasonable reliance is usually referred to as a theory of recovery in contract law. It was what a prudent person might believe and act upon based on something told by another. Sometimes a person acts in reliance on the promise of a profit or other benefit, only to learn that the statements or promises were either incorrect or were exaggerated. The one who acted to their detriment in reasonable reliance may recover damages for the costs of his/her actions or demand performance. Reasonable reliance connotes the use of the standard of an ordinary and average person.
Please see the MA statute below:
G.L.c. 41, § 111N. Emergency medical technicians; indemnification for injuries incurred within scope of employment.
Section 111N. Any city operating under a Plan D or Plan E charter which accepts this section by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the members of its city council, and any other city which accepts this section by a majority vote of its city council with the approval of the mayor, and any town which accepts this section by a majority vote of its inhabitants at an annual town meeting or a special town meeting upon application by a public employee of such city or town who is responsible for delivering emergency medical care pursuant to the provisions of section six of chapter one hundred and eleven C, hereinafter referred to as an emergency medical technician or, in the event of the physical or mental incapacity or death of such emergency medical technician by someone in his behalf, the board or officer of such city or town authorized to appoint the emergency medical technicians, shall determine whether it is appropriate under all the circumstances for such city or town to indemnify such emergency medical technician for his reasonable hospital, medical, surgical, chiropractic, nursing, pharmaceutical, prosthetic and related expenses and reasonable charges for chiropody incurred as the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring or, of undergoing a hazard peculiar to his employment, while acting in the performance and within the scope of his duty without fault of his own. For the purposes of this section, "duty" shall include any assigned special detail whether or not the emergency medical technician was paid by the city or town. If such board or officer determines that such indemnification is appropriate, such board or officer shall certify for payment, either directly or by reimbursement, by such city or town, the amount of such expenses as may be specified in such certificate. Whenever such board or officer denies an application in whole or in part, such board or officer shall set forth in writing the reasons for such denial and cause a copy thereof to be delivered to the applicant. At any time within two years after the filing of an application as aforesaid, an applicant aggrieved by a denial in whole or in part of his application or by the failure of such board or officer to act thereon within six months from the filing thereof, may petition the superior court to determine whether such board or officer has failed to timely act on such an application or, in denying the application, in whole or in part, has committed an error of law has been arbitrary or capricious or has abused his discretion, or otherwise has acted not in accordance with law. After due notice and hearing, such court may order such board or officer to act on such application or to consider, or to further consider, and determine the same in conformity with law.
A city or town shall indemnify an emergency medical technician, in the manner and to the extent herein provided and subject to the same limitations for expenses or damages incurred by him in the defense of the settlement of a claim against him for acts done by him while operating a motor vehicle as such emergency medical technician.
Where the injury for which any payment is made pursuant to the provisions of this section by a city or town has been caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person to pay damages in respect thereof, either the emergency medical technician so injured or the city or town may proceed to enforce the liability of such person in any court of competent jurisdiction. The party bringing a successful action shall be entitled to any costs, interest and attorneys' fees incurred as a direct result of such action.
Whoever intentionally or negligently injures an emergency medical technician for which he is paid indemnification under this section shall be liable in tort to the city or town for the amount of indemnification so paid.