http://www.elinfonet.com/starticles/22 Articles discussing workplace law in Massachusetts. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:03:13 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2982 Article: 2982 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) After several extensions and revisions over the course of 2009, Massachusetts will begin enforcing the March 1, 2010 compliance deadline for its regulations aimed at curbing identity theft—201 CMR 17.00: Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth. The regulations contain standards for how personal information of Massachusetts residents must be protected and can be found here. In short, if you own, license, store, maintain or otherwise receive personal information of Massachusetts residents in connection with your business, the time is long overdue to review your information security policy to ensure your company is in full compliance with the regulations by March 1. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2876 Article: 2876 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In the wake of the highly publicized theft of massive amounts of confidential customer information, Massachusetts enacted comprehensive data security legislation intended to prevent unauthorized access to such information. The Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR) has since issued detailed regulations implementing the legislation. Compliance with these regulations is now required by March 1, 2010. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2858 Article: 2858 Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Somers v. Converged Access, No. SJC-10347 (Aug. 21, 2009) recently issued a ruling that increases the amount of damages a worker can receive if he or she has been misclassified as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, under Massachusetts law. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2842 Article: 2842 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Massachusetts Tips Statute covers service charges imposed by non-employers, the highest court in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (“SJC”), has ruled. DiFiore v. American Airlines, No. SJC-10313 (Aug. 4, 2009). This case may have significant ramifications for businesses that contract with third parties to provide certain services, as those businesses no longer may retain any fees charged to their customers that are designated “service charges,” even if the charge is initially collected by a third party. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2837 Article: 2837 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Balancing consumer protection with the needs of small business, the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR) issued substantial revisions to Massachusetts’ data privacy and security regulations on August 17, 2009, that include extending the compliance deadline to March 1, 2010, among other things. (See Press Release.) This announcement follows two prior extensions of the effective date of the regulations and substantive modifications to the rules. The key revisions to the regulations are highlighted below and will be the subject of a public hearing on September 22, 2009, leaving open the possibility of additional modifications. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2833 Article: 2833 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently answered the long-standing question of whether parties may enter into contracts that provide for the arbitration of future claims under Massachusetts' antidiscrimination statute, known as Chapter 151B. In Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc., the court held that claims under Chapter 151B are arbitrable. Significantly, however, the court also held that agreements to arbitrate such claims must be stated in "clear and unmistakable terms" in order to be enforceable. In the absence of such "clear and unmistakable terms," Massachusetts courts will not compel the arbitration of claims arising under Chapter 151B. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2830 Article: 2830 Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On July 30, 2009, in a case with significant implications for wage and hour class actions, the Massachusetts Superior Court interpreted Massachusetts's stringent independent contractor statute, finding in favor of an exotic dancer's claim that her former employer—a strip club—had misclassified her as an independent contractor and not an employee. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2810 Article: 2810 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A state appellate court recently ruled in favor of an employee who claimed that his termination violated his employer’s manual and constituted a breach of contract. The Appellate Division of the state district court, finding that it would not have been unreasonable for the employee to regard the employee manual as a binding commitment, upheld a jury verdict against the employer for breach of an implied employment contract. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2809 Article: 2809 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The state’s highest court recently ruled that an employee who earned and was entitled to paid vacation time under the terms of his employment agreement and who was involuntarily discharged was entitled to payment for his unused vacation time. According to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, while state law does not require employers to provide employees with paid vacation, when the employer does so, an employee’s entitlement is another form of compensation, which is due upon discharge. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=2808 Article: 2808 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A state appellate court recently ruled that an employer is not liable for the injuries caused by a drunk driving accident involving one of its workers. According to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, although the worker became intoxicated while meeting with his supervisor at a restaurant, his employer did not have a duty of care under a theory of employer host liability.