Free Newsletter
Bristol County correction officer seeks $540K in employment discrimination suit
A veteran correctional officer is suing the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Paul Heroux alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. The lawsuit was filed in Bristol County Superior Court on […]
Civil practice – Mootness
Where a plaintiff’s complaint against a defendant labor union was dismissed as moot after the Supreme Court decided Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U.S. 878 (2018), the dismissal should be upheld because the issue of whether the plaintiff was a “prevailing party” does not bear on mootness.
Retirement – Accidental disability
Where the Leominster Retirement Board denied a petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement, the petitioner has presented adequate reasons to reject the negative reports of two of the three medical panelists, so the board’s decision should be reversed.
Former JPMorgan banker expands lurid sexual harassment, racism lawsuit
Former JPMorgan banker Chirayu Rana expands lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and racism, adding new defendants and claims in Manhattan federal court.
Remote work disability accommodations fuel legal clashes
Remote work disability accommodation requests are driving employment disputes as employers expand return-to-office mandates and courts refine ADA standards.
Unemployment compensation – Misconduct
Where a plaintiff's employment as a full-time medical assistant was terminated after her login credentials were used to access private patient health information, the denial of the plaintiff’s request for unemployment benefits should be reversed because her conduct was not in willful disregard of her employer's interest.
Employment – Joint employer status – FLSA
Where a plaintiff courier filed a complaint alleging that he was misclassified as an independent contractor, a motion by one of the defendants to dismiss the complaint should be allowed because the plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that the defendant was his joint employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act or Massachusetts law.
Labor – Duty of fair representation – Grievance
Where a prohibited practice charge has been filed alleging that a union’s handling of a grievance related to the discharge of a state employee violated G.L.c. 150E, the charge should be dismissed because the union did not fail to respond to an email from the employee, nor did the union fail to inform her of the status of the grievance.
Retirement – Group 2 – Supervisor
Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s application for Group 2 classification, that decision should be affirmed because the petitioner spent the majority of his time supervising other employees and working at the front desk, not caring for, having custody of, instructing or supervising prisoners or parolees.
Retirement – Contract service
Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s application to purchase contract service for the time she worked at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection while being paid by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, the board’s decision should be affirmed because (1) the petitioner was not a state employee or a contract employee of the commonwe[...]
Labor – ‘Weingarten’ rights – Investigatory interview
Where the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board affirmed a Department of Labor Relations investigator's decision to dismiss, for lack of probable cause, the plaintiff’s prohibited practice charge against the Department of Transitional Assistance, a remand is therefore necessary for the board to reconsider whether there was probable cause that the plaintiff's rights were violated under National[...]
Employment – Retaliation – First Amendment
Where a plaintiff has alleged that the defendant police chief retaliated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because an objectively reasonable official in his position could have believed that his conduct did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
