http://www.elinfonet.com/starticles/22 Articles discussing workplace law in Massachusetts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:02:46 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3786 Article: 3786 Mon, 05 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Massachusetts legislature has amended its state anti-discrimination law to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in employment, insurance, housing, lending, credit and education. The legislation also expanded the state hate crimes law to cover gender identity. The law, entitled An Act Relative to Gender Identity, also referred to as the Transgender Equal Rights Bill, was signed into law by Governor Deval Patrick on November 23, 2011 and becomes effective on July 1, 2012. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3782 Article: 3782 Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On November 23, 2011, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law the "Gender Identity Bill." This makes Massachusetts the 16th state – along with California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia – to provide some level of protection to employees based on gender identity and/or expression. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3777 Article: 3777 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On November 16, 2011, the Massachusetts legislature passed a transgender anti-discrimination bill, which Governor Deval Patrick is expected to sign into law this week. If the bill is signed by the Governor, “gender identity” will become a protected category under Massachusetts non-discrimination statutes. The new law also will add gender identity as a protected category to several laws intended to protect people from hate crimes and harassment. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3755 Article: 3755 Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The federal appeals court in Boston has underscored the importance of carefully examining and understanding restrictive covenants, such as non-competes and non-solicitation agreements, that may be acquired in a business purchase. The Court found a one-year non-compete clause in a restrictive covenant agreement expired and unenforceable against former employees when it was sought to be invoked more than one year following the sale of the company that had entered into the agreements with them. OfficeMax, Inc. v. Levesque, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18816 (1st Cir. Sept. 12, 2011). Accordingly, the Court refused to enforce the District Court’s preliminary injunction restricting the former employees from competing with OfficeMax, an office supplies company that bought the assets of Boise Cascade Office Products Corp. (BCOP), another office supply company. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3728 Article: 3728 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In a case of first impression, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge in the Business Litigation Session has ruled that the Massachusetts Wage Act protects out-of-state employees as long as they have sufficient contacts with the Commonwealth. In Dow v. Casale, et al., Superior Court Civil Action No. 10-1343-BLS1, a former sales director, who resided in Florida and worked out of his home in Florida, brought suit against several officers and directors of his former employer, a Massachusetts technology company, claiming that the company owed him in excess of $100,000 in unpaid commissions and accrued vacation pay. Finding that the Wage Act, “was designed to regulate the actions of Massachusetts employers, regardless of where their employees work,” Superior Court Judge Peter Lauriat concluded that the out-of-state employee had sufficient contacts to move forward with his suit seeking unpaid commissions and accrued vacation pay. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3640 Article: 3640 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts’ highest court, has ruled in Rosnov v. Molloy, SJC-10762 (August 31, 2011) that an amendment to the Massachusetts Wage Act, which mandates an automatic award of treble damages to employees prevailing on wage and hour claims under Massachusetts law, does not apply retroactively. Rather, according to the Supreme Judicial Court, it only applies to conduct occurring on or after the July 12, 2008 effective date of the statute. A 2008 amendment to the Massachusetts Wage Act, M.G.L. c. 149, section 150, provides for a mandatory award of treble damages to prevailing employees in wage and hour claims against their employers. Specifically, the amendment provided the following http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3464 Article: 3464 Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A new Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision expands the scope of potential retaliation claims under the state's discrimination and retaliation statute, the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act. In a case with a long and tortured history, Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 2011 Mass. LEXIS 254 (2011), the court concluded that an ex-employee can bring a retaliation claim against a former employer for actions taken after the termination of the employer-employee relationship, and that instituting baseless litigation against an ex-employee can serve as the basis for a retaliation claim. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3353 Article: 3353 Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Yet again, Massachusetts has ratcheted up the cost of doing business for employers. While many employers have routinely recouped money that employees owe them, such as reimbursement for damage employees cause to company or third-party property, a recent Supreme Judicial Court decision, Camara v. Attorney General, 2011 Mass. LEXIS 16 (Mass. Jan. 25, 2011), makes it clear that employers can dock their employees' pay only under certain limited circumstances. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3351 Article: 3351 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Over the years, Massachusetts employers have wondered, “What can I deduct from an employee’s paycheck?” This week, in Camara v. Attorney General, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, deferring to the Attorney General’s interpretation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, narrowed the list of potential deductions. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?stateID=3339 Article: 3339 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A few weeks ago, we outlined the Top 5 Non-Compete Issues to Watch For In 2011. Among our top five, we noted that non-compete legislation stalled in the Massachusetts Legislature in 2010, and we forecasted that new and modified legislation would be introduced in 2011. Sure enough, a new bill was recently introduced. It contains numerous changes from the prior legislation, and it addresses issues ranging from consideration to garden leave to inevitable disclosure. An excellent summary of the proposed legislation along with a description of the changes from last year's bill is available on Russell Beck's blog at FairCompetitionLaw.com.