Bennett & Belfort, P.C., is proud to announce that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has issued a pivotal decision in its case: Hidalgo v. Watch City Construction Corp. B&B attorneys David E. Belfort and Nafisa Bohra, along with Robert Mantell, helped their client secure this decision that strengthens critical protections for low-wage workers seeking to enforce their rights under the Massachusetts Wage Act.
A summary of the facts: Andres Hidalgo sued his employer, Watch City Construction Corp., under the Wage Act for $11,216 in unpaid wages. In response, Watch City filed counterclaims against Hidalgo for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. These are claims based solely on Hidalgo’s filing of the lawsuit to recover his wages. Counterclaims like those filed against Hidalgo can dissuade workers from, and punish them for, their efforts to recover unpaid wages.
Hidalgo filed a special motion to dismiss the counterclaims under Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute, which protects individuals from retaliatory lawsuits designed to chill their constitutional right to petition the Court for redress. The District Court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss.
Hidalgo appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which ruled in his favor and held that the two process counterclaims filed by Watch City were SLAPP claims and should therefore be dismissed. Hidalgo then sought $67,361.25 in appellate attorney’s fees. Though the Appeals Court found the hours spent and rates charged by B&B reasonable, under the prevailing Loadstar method, and the anti-SLAPP issues “fairly complex,” it cut the attorneys’ fee award in half, reasoning that $67,000 in fees was disproportionate to the $11,000 underlying Wage Act claim.
Hidalgo appealed to the SJC, where Attorney Belfort argued for Hidalgo. In a decision dated, March 25, 2026, Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote for the majority in reversing the 50% reduction of legal fees. The SJC held that the Appeals Court’s halving of Hidalgo’s legal fees was an abuse of discretion.
The SJC emphasized that the lodestar method, reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable rates, governs absent special circumstances. Hidalgo sought fees only for the anti-SLAPP work, not for the Wage Act claims themselves, and the complexity of the anti-SLAPP issues did not depend on the value of the underlying wage claims.
“Reducing an anti-SLAPP fee award based on the amount of damages sought for lost wages in the underlying Wage Act claims impermissibly minimizes the importance of such claims and risks disincentivizing lawyers from taking Wage Act cases,” Justice Kafker wrote.
Speaking to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Attorney Belfort highlighted the ruling’s significance. “It allows low-wage earners to meaningfully thwart unsupported SLAPP claims because they can attract capable lawyers to represent them,” Belfort said. “The decision stands for a lot of good in an otherwise strained justice system.”
The Hidalgo decision reaffirms that employers cannot use retaliatory counterclaims to intimidate low-wage workers from pursuing legitimate legal claims, ensuring workers of all incomes have meaningful access to legal representation regardless of the dollar amount at stake.
