The post Reopening Massachusetts: Information for Employers appeared first on Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP.
Articles Discussing General Topics In Massachusetts Labor & Employment Law.
Massachusetts Releases Four-Phase Reopening Plan
On May 18, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker and the Massachusetts Reopening Advisory Board released the Reopening Massachusetts Report (the “Report”), which provides details regarding the state’s four-phase return-to-work plan. The Report provides that manufacturing facilities may reopen as of May 18, 2020, and certain other businesses, including offices
Proposed Amendments to the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Regulations are Released for Public Comment
With less than eight months before benefits become available under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Law (PFML), the Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave (Department) released proposed amendments to regulations previously finalized on July 1, 2019.
Massachusetts Agency Provides Guidance on Unemployment Benefits for Returning Employees and Employers’ Obligations
The Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) recently issued new guidance for employers, addressing a number of questions related to the effect returning to work will have on employees’ unemployment benefits and employers’ obligations. The guidance addresses topics including the effect on unemployment of an employee’s refusal to return
Massachusetts CORI Verification Requirements Temporarily Changed to Allow Use of Teleconference
Massachusetts has issued emergency regulations allowing employers to verify an individual’s identity by teleconference to comply with the state Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law during the current state of emergency caused by the COVID-19 crisis.
Massachusetts Enacts Emergency Regulation on CORI Verifications
On April 9, 2020, the Massachusetts’ Department of Criminal Justice Information Systems (DCJIS) passed an Emergency Regulation to address the social distancing limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Any entity requesting criminal offender record information through DCJIS’s iCORI database (CORI) must first obtain the subject’s authorization. Previously, as part of this authorization process, the requesting party had to verify the subject’s identity in person by examining government-issued photo identification. If an in-person interaction was not possible, the CORI authorization must have been signed by the subject and certified by a notary public.
Massachusetts Court Provides Guidance on Joint Employer Liability and the Scope of the Outside Salesperson Exemption
In Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC (March 31, 2020), Judge Kenneth Salinger in the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court provided guidance on two important wage and hour issues. First, the court concluded that the “right-to-control” test was the appropriate method for determining whether two companies were “joint employers” for purposes of the Massachusetts wage and hour laws.
Massachusetts CARES: The Commonwealth Implements the CARES Act’s Unemployment Benefits
On Thursday, April 9, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s administration announced the partial implementation of unemployment benefits in accordance with the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
Massachusetts Department of Paid Family Leave Releases New Guidance
The current circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 crisis have brought paid family and medical leave to the forefront of the national consciousness. While the federal government and other states have created new, immediately effective, paid family and medical leave laws, Massachusetts has remained committed to the existing timeframe for the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA), which will be effective January 1, 2021.
MA AG’s Fair Labor Division Publishes COVID-19 FAQ
Recently, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Fair Labor Division (“FLD”), which enforces the state’s wage and hour laws, published its answers to frequently asked questions (“FAQ”) that the FLD has been receiving from both employers and employees in the wake of COVID-19. The FAQ covers the following important issues:
MA Governor Orders Closing of Non-Essential Workplaces & Facilities
On March 23, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker issued COVID-19 Order No. 13: “Order Assuring Continued Operation of Essential Services in the Commonwealth, Closing Certain Workplaces, and Prohibiting Gatherings of More Than 10 People” (the “Order”). Please click here for a copy of the Order.
Massachusetts Governor Orders All Nonessential Businesses and Organizations to Close Facilities
On March 23, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker issued an Order requiring all nonessential businesses and organizations to close their physical workspaces and facilities to customers, workers and the public. This Order came days after the Massachusetts Department of Public Health reported the state’s first death from COVID-19. A copy of the Governor’s Order is here.
New Emergency Regulations Enable MA Workers Experiencing Temporary Lack of Work Caused by COVID-19 to Collect Unemployment Benefits
The Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) has issued emergency regulations (430 CMR 22.00 et seq) enabling employees who have been placed on “standby status” by their employer to be eligible for unemployment benefits. It is assumed that “standby status” includes both lay-offs and furloughs, so long as the employee has an “expected return to work date.”
Massachusetts High Court Upholds Enforcement of Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant
Over the past few years, legislators and government agencies at both the state and federal levels have pushed reforms limiting the use of non-competes and other restrictive covenants by U.S. businesses. Some of those efforts have extended to covenants that restrict a party’s ability to solicit and/or hire employees who are not party to the agreements in question.
Anti-Raiding Provision Upheld by Massachusetts High Court
Restrictive covenant matters rarely make it through the appellate courts. This is true for a number of reasons, including the fact that the time-sensitive nature of restrictive covenant litigation often compels parties to achieve a resolution before their case can work its way through the court system. The dearth of appellate case law is even more pronounced for anti-raiding covenants, which appear to provoke fewer lawsuits than non-compete and customer non-solicitation covenants.