Gender Identity Will Become A Protected Class In Massachusetts
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.
Massachusetts Passes Legislation Protecting Transgender Employees in the Workplace
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.
Massachusetts Passes Legislation to Protect Gender Identity
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.
Failure to Update Non-compete Agreements after Purchase of Company Foils Enforcement
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.
Court Extends Massachusetts Wage Act Coverage to Out-of-State Employees
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.
Mandatory Treble Damages on Massachusetts Wage and Hour Claims Are Not Mandatory for Conduct Occurring Prior to July 12, 2008
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
Massachusetts High Court Expands Retaliation Protection
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.
Massachusetts High Court: Employers Can't Dock Pay!
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.
Docking Pay For Property Damage Not Permitted Under Massachusetts Wage Act, Court Rules
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.
New Massachusetts Non-Compete Legislation Introduced
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.
