Massachusetts Lawyer Blog

Sarah Randag, recently posted on the ABA Journal a labor and employment law post, LinkedIn Reviews Can Come Back to Haunt Employers, Lawyers Say, which opens with,

Management-side employment lawyers are advising their clients against writing recommendations for current or recent employees on LinkedIn.

The same argument could be made on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media web site.  Does your company have a social media policy? If so, are you tracking or keeping a record of what is being said, if anything, about your employees by their managers on the web? Do you prefer to not know? When workplace disputes arise, do you see if anything has been brought up or mentioned on the web. If so, and you discover something online, are you dealing with it in a way that could lead to litigation down the road? On a related issue, if an employee complains to you about another employee's postings on the web, are you prepared to respond? With changes in communication methods and technology's quickening pace come new and constant challenges to consider when employment issues arise.

Technorati Tags: employment, law, LinkedIn, review, handbook

My new Privacy Law and Policy blog is underway. This blog examines privacy law issues that include:

• Privacy Rights
• Privacy Invasions
• Security Breaches and Crimes
• Open Government

I help individuals in civil and criminal matters and represents municipalities and businesses in privacy compliance matters, security breaches, commercial privacy infringements, cybercrimes, and crimes involving privacy issues.

You can also follow Kevin Whitaker on Twitter at http://twitter.com/kevinwhitaker

Massachusetts attorney Kevin Whitaker's new Privacy Law and Policy Blog is live.

Technorati Tags: Privac, Privacy Law, Privacy Lawyer, Privacy Attorney

Think twice before hitting send. Massachusetts attorney, Robert Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch, posts Bloggers Have BigLaw Watching Its Back, discussing how lawyers are being careful about what they post in their emails and memos. Ambrogi references an ABA Journal article written by Terry Carter reporting,

...leaking...has law firm leaders exercising caution. ... firms are well aware their private e-mails may end up in the public spotlight....

Carter Clayton an assistant managing partner at WilmerHale is quoted in the ABA article saying her firm now vets all firmwide memos, adding "It could be on a blog," she said. "It makes us careful."

Whether you're a business owner, manager, serve on a board of directors, or otherwise, you have to ask yourself, "Am I ready for this email to become public? Or posted on a blog and published for all to see forever and ever?" Exercise "send" with caution.

After my last COBRA post, COBRA Insurance Relief Under the Stimulus Package: New Employee Benefit Issues for Employees and Employers, I've been getting quite few COBRA inquiries from people who have lost a job. People are asking, "What do I do to get these COBRA benefits?"

To learn if you qualify and what to do, first try contacting your former employer and then your former health insurance Plan Administrator.

If you don't get an informed response then here are some links from the U.S. Department of Labor (phone numbers are included, too):

• COBRA Premium Reduction Provision

• Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference on the COBRA Premium Reduction Provision

• COBRA Premium Reduction Fact Sheet

• Job Loss Poster (8½" x 11")

• Job Loss Poster (11" x 17")

• Flyer for Employers • Flyer for Employees

• COBRA Continuation Health Coverage FAQs for Employees

• COBRA Continuation Health Coverage FAQs for Employers

• Basic COBRA Information for employees • [Spanish]

• Basic COBRA Information for employers • [Spanish]

• Other Job Loss Resources

• IRS Information on COBRA Premium Reduction

• DOL Information Related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Last night during a budget meeting of the Weymouth town council, we discussed the Massachusetts Governor's recent 9C cuts and how we would handle the lost revenues during this fiscal year. While layoffs were discussed, we opted (although not unanimously) to avoid layoffs this fiscal year because we would only have about one fiscal quarter (after the notice period ran) to make the full $1,000,000 in cuts.

Despite my strong reluctance to use a one time nonrecurring revenue source to make-up the difference (we had funds available from the sale of a town owned property), I thought it better to spread the cuts over a full fiscal year should any become necessary as we move forward. Had we opted to act now, we were looking at laying off 120-140 employees next week.

In those cities and towns without an adequate reserve or a new revenue source, they may be forced into making tough choices on layoffs soon. For employees who are displaced due to job loss, there is some help in the stimulus package in the form of a 65% employer paid subsidy of COBRA premiums for nine months. The Employee Benefits Legal Blog has a good post, Employer Paid COBRA Subsidies in the Economic Stimulus Bill: Initial Action Plan and alert that applies to the employer side of this, but provides a good overview for employees, too.

Eligible employees who suffered an involuntary job loss or had a qualifying event (between September 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009) or qualified beneficiaries, should make sure they understand how this COBRA provision affects them and their insurance coverage options.  Covered employers, on the other hand, have the new challenges of dealing with this program and its requirements. While employers are eligible for a payroll tax credit for the COBRA premiums paid under the Act, this Act is a major change to COBRA law and administration and thus must be taken into consideration before making any reductions in the workforce.

Looking to file an unemployment claim in Mass.? There are two (2) ways to file an unemployment insurance (UI) claim: by telephone or in person.  Before calling you may want to see the State's FAQ about unemployment insurance. For instance: What information do I need when I apply? can help you have the information available when it's needed.

An article at WBZ NEWSRADIO 1030 - "MA lengthens hours for unemployment call-in centers" discusses the increased hours at call-in centers for filing Massachusetts unemployment claims due to the increase in demand from the newly unemployed:

A surge in layoffs has led to lines as long as two hours at unemployment centers and lengthy waits for those filing by phone. Call center workers answered nearly 30 percent more calls in October, compared to a year ago.

Effective immediately and through the end of the year, the statewide Teleclaim Centers will be open Monday-Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

On the Massachusetts Employment Law front, with the number of claims being processed, there will likely be an increase in appeals, too.  Just because a claim is initially denied doesn't mean it won't be allowed if the denial is correctly challenged.

Ronald J. Levine and Susan L. Swatski-Lebson in Legal Technology ask, Are Social Networking Sites Discoverable?  This is another article demonstrating the risks and considerations in social networking sites.  They conclude,

Although these sites provide users with a sense of intimacy and community, they also create a potentially permanent record of personal information that becomes a virtual information bonanza about a litigant's private life and state of mind. The converse thus becomes the moral for litigation counsel -- this new generational fount of potentially discoverable information should be high on the list of priorities when evaluating a new matter.

While employees need to be careful what they post, employers should take care in how they use the information they find, too.

Employees and waitstaff in Mass. seem to be finding increasing success through lawsuits and settlements over undistributed tips being handled by lawyers well versed in the Massachusetts tips statute.

A Massachusetts-based luxury resort and spa will reportedly pay $14.7 million to resolve claims it wrongly kept employees from receiving tips. According to the Boston Globes' coverage of the lawsuit, guests of Canyon Ranch were charged 18% in service charges, but those charges were not given to workers at the resort/spa. The settlement is reported to be awaiting the approval of a federal judge according to the Globe's Jonathan Saltzman who had written an article covering the Massachusetts tips law and Starbucks claims in March.

At the heart of these issues lies the little-known Massachusetts tips statute:

Chapter 149: Section 152A. Service charges and tips; tip pools; penalties

Section 152A. (a) As used in this section, the following words, unless a different meaning is required by the context or is specifically prescribed, shall have the following meanings:—

“Wait staff employee”, a person, including a waiter, waitress, bus person, and counter staff, who: (1) serves beverages or prepared food directly to patrons, or who clears patrons’ tables; (2) works in a restaurant, banquet facility, or other place where prepared food or beverages are served; and (3) who has no managerial responsibility.

“Service employee”, a person who works in an occupation in which employees customarily receive tips or gratuities, and who provides service directly to customers or consumers, but who works in an occupation other than in food or beverage service, and who has no managerial responsibility.

“Service bartender”, a person who prepares alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverages for patrons to be served by another employee, such as a wait staff employee.

“Employer”, any person or entity having employees in its service, including an owner or officer of an establishment employing wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders, or any person whose primary responsibility is the management or supervision of wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders.

“Patron”, any person who is served by a wait staff employee or service employee at any place where such employees perform work, including, but not limited to, any restaurant, banquet facility or other place at which prepared food or beverage is served, or any person who pays a tip or service charge to any wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender.

“Service charge”, a fee charged by an employer to a patron in lieu of a tip to any wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender, including any fee designated as a service charge, tip, gratuity, or a fee that a patron or other consumer would reasonably expect to be given to a wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender in lieu of, or in addition to, a tip.

“Tip”, a sum of money, including any amount designated by a credit card patron, a gift or a gratuity, given as an acknowledgment of any service performed by a wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender.

(b) No employer or other person shall demand, request or accept from any wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender any payment or deduction from a tip or service charge given to such wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender by a patron. No such employer or other person shall retain or distribute in a manner inconsistent with this section any tip or service charge given directly to the employer or person.

(c) No employer or person shall cause, require or permit any wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender to participate in a tip pool through which such employee remits any wage, tip or service charge, or any portion thereof, for distribution to any person who is not a wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender. An employer may administer a valid tip pool and may keep a record of the amounts received for bookkeeping or tax reporting purposes.

(d) If an employer or person submits a bill, invoice or charge to a patron or other person that imposes a service charge or tip, the total proceeds of that service charge or tip shall be remitted only to the wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders in proportion to the service provided by those employees.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from imposing on a patron any house or administrative fee in addition to or instead of a service charge or tip, if the employer provides a designation or written description of that house or administrative fee, which informs the patron that the fee does not represent a tip or service charge for wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders.

(e) Any service charge or tip remitted by a patron or person to an employer shall be paid to the wait staff employee, service employee, or service bartender by the end of the same business day, and in no case later than the time set forth for timely payment of wages under section 148.

(f) Whoever violates this section shall be subject to all of the civil and criminal penalties and remedies set forth in section 27C. Any person or employer who violates this section shall make restitution for any tips accepted, distributed or retained in violation of this section, together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. An employee claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this section may proceed pursuant to the second paragraph of section 150. The attorney general or, under said section 150, an employee may bring an action under this section within 3 years of any violation of this section.

(g) No employer or person shall by a special contract with an employee or by any other means exempt itself from this section.

In fiscal year 2007, the EEOC reportedly received 30,510 charges of race discrimination and resolved 25,882 race charges in FY 07 recovering $67.7 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation). 

Today's question: Can a Massachusetts employer remove an employee or isolate a protected class member in an employment context?

The EEOC website offers the following examples demonstrating this prohibited conduct is employment discrimination. Thus an employee in Massachusetts facing these circumstances should consider seeking the help of an employment lawyer or consider pursuing a claim if they are being discriminated against in one of these manners in Mass.

Segregation and Classification of Employees

Title VII is violated where employees who belong to a protected group are segregated by physically isolating them from other employees or from customer contact. In addition, employers may not assign employees according to race or color. For example, Title VII prohibits assigning primarily African-Americans to predominantly African-American establishments or geographic areas. It is also illegal to exclude members of one group from particular positions or to group or categorize employees or jobs so that certain jobs are generally held by members of a certain protected group. Coding applications/resumes to designate an applicant's race, by either an employer or employment agency, constitutes evidence of discrimination where people of a certain race or color are excluded from employment or from certain positions.

If you look at the MCAD's Fair Employment Law Poster hanging up in most places of employment you will note it states:

IT IS UNLAWFUL:

• to print or circulate any advertisement or use any application form which directly or indirectly specifies any limitation on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, military service, age, ancestry or disability.

• to discharge or reuse to hire any individual on the basis of their race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, military service, age, ancestry or disability.

• to discriminate against any individual in matters relating to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, military service, age, ancestry or disability. ...
  

Further,

RETALIATION:

It is illegal to retaliate against any person because s/he has opposed any practices forbidden under this Chapter or because s/he has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding before the Commission. It is also illegal to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doings of any of the acts forbidden under this Chapter or to attempt to do so.

Thus, not only is discrimination prevented, but so is retaliating against those who are involved in discrimination cases.  That is, there's a separate and distinct complaint one may have against an employer who takes an adverse employment action against an employee for asserting their rights and advancing their employment discrimination claims.  If you're interested in retaliation issues, you may want to see my prior post (with links at its bottom) for more discussion on retaliation claims and trends in employment matters.

More employee retaliation rights in the employment context may be seen as emerging from the Supreme Court's questioning during a recent case, Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County. Tony Mauro, writing for the Legal Time in Supreme Court Hears Environmental, Employment Discrimination Cases, writes:

And in the employment case, Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County, lawyers for a Nashville, Tenn., school employee and for the Bush administration appeared to persuade the Court that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from retaliation even when they complain about sexual harassment during an internal investigation -- before any formal charges are made.

...

In the employment case, the Court has in recent years been favorable to claims by those who suffer retaliation for complaining about Title VII workplace discrimination in the context of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations. But the case before the Court involves the firing of someone who complained about sexual harassment during an internal investigation before any EEOC charges were filed -- a not uncommon scenario.

Vicky Crawford, the Nashville school employee in the case, complained about a supervisor's lewd behavior in an interview with a human resources department official, but made no formal charges and was later fired. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that she was not protected from retaliation because her complaints did not amount to the kind of "active opposition" to school policies that Title VII requires.

University of Washington School of Law professor Eric Schnapper, a veteran advocate for employees in civil rights cases, argued strenuously that the law covers Crawford's situation because in making her complaints, she was actively objecting to her employers' conduct.

Justices peppered him with several hypotheticals, but Schnapper held to his position. Arguing in support of Crawford, assistant to the solicitor general Lisa Blatt also said Crawford should be protected against retaliation.

Francis Young, an assistant city attorney for Nashville, argued that Crawford did not meet the "opposition" requirement of the law because she did not make formal charges of sexual harassment.

Justice John Paul Stevens and other justices reacted incredulously. Noting that Crawford had told her harasser to "get the hell out of my office," Stevens said, "That's an active opposition, it seems."

For a few related posts I've written showing a trend in employment cases, see:

• Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Firing and Employment Retaliation Claims
• Religious Discrimination and EEOC's Lists of "Best Practices" for Employers and Employees
• Elder Employees Pick Up Another Employment Law Win at the Supreme Court
• Discrimination Law Gets Active. Discrimination Cases Extend Protected Rights in Age and Racial Discrimination. "Me too" Evidence an open Q. Bush signs law on Genetic Discrimination

Driving from Weymouth to Rockland this morning (a short trip) the news was pretty consistent.  Things aren't good.  You don't need to be a bankruptcy lawyer to know the bankruptcy news is not limited to national stories.  Local impacts are being felt throughout Massachusetts.  As companies fold or downsize, jobs are eliminated, leaving employees questioning, "What's next?"

For some (not all), perhaps the answer includes starting a business in Massachusetts.  The Duct Tape Marketing Blog lists its Top 12 Resources for Start-Ups.  In addition to these 12, I thought I'd offer a dozen earlier posts I had written on business law issues or resources in Massachusetts a start-up might consider:

1. 10 free lessons on starting and running a business
2. Mistakes made in forming a partnership in Massachusetts
3. 7 issues to be prepared for in Massachusetts leases
4. Copyright law explained in a drawing
5. Independent contractor issues to be aware of in Massachusetts
6. Electronic evidence if you get sued
7. Wage and employment law in Mass.
   
8. Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Law in MA
   
9. Contracts and partnership agreements
10. Public infrastructure opportunities in MA
    
11. Employment Posts (in general) Massachusetts
    
12. Succession planning for Massachusetts business owners

Mass. employment, labor, and wage law issues are active lately so I thought this might be of interest to lawyers and consumers alike who are also following national employment issues.

The Wall Street Journal reports,

Two U.S. senators accused the Department of Labor of violating the 'spirit and goals' of a federal law aimed at protecting employees who report corporate wrongdoing, and called on the agency to stop rejecting claims from workers at subsidiary companies. In a letter to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who also is on the committee, wrote that they were dismayed that the 'administration -- the Department of Labor in particular -- has been using overly restrictive interpretation of this law to dismiss a majority of the complaints' filed under the whistleblower-protection provisions of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Sen. Leahy and Sen. Grassley, who wrote those provisions, said that 'there is simply no basis to assert' that employees of the subsidiaries of publicly traded companies aren't covered under the act, as the department has ass erted in numerous recent cases.

Our next choice in President will likely shape the policy choices at the Department of Labor. Perhaps this won't emerge as a topic of interesting debate, but it is one of consequence to employees and employers.

It never ceases to amaze me how attorneys need to fight for their employment clients' jobs or workplace rights even in open and shut cases.  This morning I was in Boston, MA passing time by reading an other lawyer's employment law article and case discussing the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and employment retaliation claims. See Linda Horras' article for further review and/or download a copy of the full case: Bryant v. Dollar Gen. Corp., No. 07-5006 (6th Cir., Aug. 15, 2008).

SUMMARY

An employee fired four days after a Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave was successful in her FMLA retaliation claim.  This makes logical sense -- why allow the right to take FMLA leave if one can be punished for it after?  The company argued the FMLA statute did not expressly prohibit retaliation against an employee.  The court didn't buy their argument.

LESSON

Employment retaliation claims, even when not expressly found in the law, may be reasonably inferred when they arise from a protected employment right.

Blogs, social networks, and the web extend well beyond Massachusetts borders thus it's often instructive to look around the country and consider how laws are developing elsewhere as they relate to blogging and cyberspace in general. Trial lawyers of both today and of the future will need to be well versed in the law and understand this evolving interactive arena that changes day-by-day. Blogger and California law professor Eric Goldman recently mentions a case involving blog postings being introduced as evidence in a trademark infringement lawsuit. He quotes the court's holding which excluded the blog's comments from evidence.

The Court declines to consider these postings in reaching its decision. The Court is concerned, on this record, that the blog entries lack sufficient indicia of reliability.FN4

Nothing is known about the persons who made the entries, about whether they are related in any way to either party or whether they are describing true events and impressions. Moreover, the authors' meaning and the import of the blog entries are far from clear.

FN4. This should not be construed as a ruling by the Court that entries on Internet blogs could not, on a different record, be reliable and admissible.

(The case was as consumer confusion case on whether "Mooo Tracks" ice cream infringes upon "Moose Track" ice cream. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P. v. Denali Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2965655 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2008)).

You can look at this from two perspectives, the blog comments were kept out. On the other hand, there were some criteria listed for their exclusion. If these were met, would the comments be allowed into evidence here? It would seem so, why shouldn't they be? Look to the next round of cases to have greater foundations laid down concerning the inclusion of blog comments as evidence.

Like many attorneys I talk with, I'm already seeing more of my clients who are relying on blogs or websites for much of their news. The constantly dwindling size of my newspaper backs this up too. Some do believe, "If I read it, then it's true," but as we know, that's often not the case.

Reliability, validity, authenticity are continuing concerns of justice and in the short term, it seems the web won't make things easier in these areas. Here the law still has much to work out regarding how it's going to keep pace with the web, social media, web 2.0 or whatever name or thing is next. Smart trial lawyers will need to keep pace with these evidentiary possibilities as more and more communications and events are recorded somewhere someplace electronically. Appellate courts and lawyers should see interesting and intellectually stimulaing times ahead in this area of law. While some of the tools of proof may be new, the principles remain the same -- it may just take a little time to connect the two.

Lately I've been hearing more and more from employees in Massachusetts who have been fired from their jobs or discriminated against at work. Some involve wage claims, others are retaliation claims. Many of these fired employees are forced to leave a bad employer (due to a new manager) and are looking to move on with a fair severance package or appropriate settlement arrangement, others just want a fair chance at having their jobs back. Some employees who are moving on are leaving jobs behind where they have worked for years. Now they wonder, how do I keep my new job in this tough economy.

An email from Keith Ferrazzi I received today discusses Stephen Viscusi's Bulletproof Your Job: 4 Simple Strategies to Ride Out the Rough Times and Come Out On Top at Work, a book on your personal brand at work. Here's his list of a few favorites he pulled directly from the book that can help those finding themselves in a new job or looking to secure their current employment positions.

Five Tips to Bulletproof Your Job Today

1. Introduce Yourself: "You don't need to get your name on a billboard to make yourself known to a company bigwig. You just need three things: say your name, assert your connection to her, and share your personal pitch... Follow up with an e-mail or handwritten note, reminding him of your brief meeting and saying how much you enjoyed it."

2. Volunteer to Lead: "Offering to take the lead shows you have a stomach for risk, the capacity to learn, and the desire for accomplishment that others might not possess."

3. Be Positive: "In short, positive people are easy to work with and negative people are not. And smart positive people are among the most valuable in the workplace.... You can choose to be positive - and to set off the whole chain of positive influence - simply by indentifying your current worldview and habits and making conscious positive adjustments... All you have to do is smile."

4. Be A Mentor: "...step up and offer a bit of support that will help newbies feel a connection that will make them want to stay in the game and get with the program... It allows you to plant seeds of influence and support throughout your company and your industry that will grow and become more valuable to you over time... You just need to know the ropes of your workplace and have some experience that would be helpful to someone else... Keep things informal, meet regularly, keep it professional, and keep up the connection."

5. Improve Your Networking Skills: "Job survival and advancement are about always having a substantial list of professional acquaintances... The most influential and useful are usually those who work in and around your field, but it's not at all unusual for an outsider to be the most effective person in your network... For every person you collect into your network because she may be helpful to you, you should count on being called onto be a resource for her, too."

Massachusetts employment and contract laws can often collide. As an attorney, I'd say the same can be said for federal law, contract law, and other state's employment laws too.

Take this for example from CO lawyers' Holme, Roberts & Owen LLP' Employment Law Newsletter, where Jennifer Sloan Bielak discusses a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling where an employee not otherwise entitled for Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") rights was entitled to them because the FMLA conditions were set forth in the employee handbook. See Peters v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. No. 06-4290 (7th Cir. July 14, 2008).

Commenting on the case, Bielak writes,

Many employers incorrectly believe that employee handbooks are not binding legal contracts based on disclaimers, which state that the handbook is not a contract. These disclaimers, however, are often invalid. Under basic principles of contract law, whenever there is a conflict between general and specific contract terms, the general term is ignored, and the specific term is enforced. Thus, one cannot take away a specific contract right like the right to progressive discipline or employee leave with a general provision saying that the employee handbook is not a contract. If a handbook term gives employees specific rights, it is probably an enforceable employment contract.

The case stresses the importance for employers of understanding that employee handbooks and personnel policies are part of the law of the workplace and need to be written as such. Avoid idealistic polices that reflect the way an ideal workplace is supposed to work. Instead, write policies that are simple, that can be understood and followed by all managers and supervisors, and that are easy to apply in actual practice.

Whether I'm in a union hall in Boston or a boardroom in Braintree, I'm seeing employment discrimination and wage claims continuing to remain on the rise in Massachusetts. At the same time, the right to earn a living wage seems to be have begun being protected more and more by the courts. In sum, the technical requirements and risks seem greater for employers moreso now than ever before. Employees are calling lawyers like myself daily to discuss their employemnt claims. In this climate, all employers are best advised to make sure their policies are firmly in place and are being implemented soundly. While the scales may have tipped in their favor in the past, I wouldn't count on it in today's environment.

While Massachusetts discrimination claims are often commenced under state discrimination laws (before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination or in Superior Court), federal laws also exist and can often overlap or provide additional context for interpreting or enforcing state laws. For instance, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are federal laws that cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

One of the lesser discussed discrimination prohibitions contained in Title VII concerns religious discrimination. While discrimination based on religion is seen less frequently than
other types of discrimination, its incidence of reporting has been
rising. Some attribute this to changes in the workforce,
attitudes post 9/11, and the increased attention focused on immigration issues. Perhaps due to these changes and others, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released an updated Compliance Manual (PDF) covering religious discrimination. The newly revised "Section 12" (7/22/2008) provides guidance and instructions for investigating and analyzing charges alleging discrimination based on religion.

The revision includes 55 examples relating to religious discrimination issues and lists "best practices" for employers and HR professionals to be aware of (see list of best practices below).

The Section is organized in parts:

1. I - Coverage issues, including the definition of “religion” and “sincerely held,” the religious organization exception, and the ministerial exception.
2. II - Disparate treatment analysis of employment decisions based on religion, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, and compensation, as well as differential treatment with respect to religious expression; customer preference; security requirements; and bona fide occupational qualifications.
3. III - Harassment analysis, including religious belief or practice as a condition of employment or advancement, hostile work environment, and employer liability issues.
4. IV - Reasonable accommodation analysis, including notice of the conflict between religion and work, scope of the accommodation requirement and undue hardship defense, and common methods of accommodation.
5. V - Related forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on national origin, race, or color, as well as retaliation.

The Overview states:

Religion is very broadly defined under Title VII. Religious beliefs, practices, and observances include those that are theistic in nature, as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Religious beliefs can include unique views held by a few or even one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices, and observances if the beliefs are “sincerely held” and the reasonable accommodation poses no undue hardship on the employer.

Some general areas include:

Prohibited Conduct

Religious harassment in violation of Title VII occurs when employees are: (1) required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment (this type of “quid pro quo” harassment may also give rise to a disparate treatment or denial of accommodation claim in some circumstances), or (2) subjected to unwelcome statements or conduct that is based on religion and is so severe or pervasive that the individual being harassed reasonably finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and there is a basis for holding the employer liable.

National Origin, Race, and Color

Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination may overlap with Title VII’s prohibitions against discrimination based on national origin, race, and color. Where a given religion is strongly associated – or perceived to be associated – with a certain national origin, the same facts may state a claim of both religious and national origin discrimination. All four bases might be implicated where, for example, co-workers target a dark-skinned Muslim employee from Saudi Arabia for harassment because of his religion, national origin, race, and/or color.

Retaliation

Title VII prohibits retaliation by an employer, employment agency, or labor organization because an individual has engaged in protected activity. Protected activity consists of opposing a practice the employee reasonably believes is made unlawful by one of the employment discrimination statutes or of filing a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the statute. EEOC has taken the position that requesting religious accommodation is protected activity.

Employer Best Practices

• Employers can reduce the risk of discriminatory employment decisions by establishing written objective criteria for evaluating candidates for hire or promotion and applying those criteria consistently to all candidates.
• In conducting job interviews, employers can ensure nondiscriminatory treatment by asking the same questions of all applicants for a particular job or category of job and inquiring about matters directly related to the position in question.
• Employers can reduce the risk of religious discrimination claims by carefully and timely recording the accurate business reasons for disciplinary or performance‑related actions and sharing these reasons with the affected employees.
• When management decisions require the exercise of subjective judgment, employers can reduce the risk of discriminatory decisions by providing training to inexperienced managers and encouraging them to consult with more experienced managers or human resources personnel when addressing difficult issues.
• If an employer is confronted with customer biases, e.g., an adverse reaction to being served by an employee due to religious garb, the employer should consider engaging with and educating the customers regarding any misperceptions they may have and/or the equal employment opportunity laws.

• Employers should have a well-publicized and consistently applied anti-harassment policy that: (1) covers religious harassment; (2) clearly explains what is prohibited; (3) describes procedures for bringing harassment to management’s attention; and, (4) contains an assurance that complainants will be protected against retaliation. The procedures should include a complaint mechanism that includes multiple avenues for complaint; prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations; and prompt and appropriate corrective action.
• Employers should allow religious expression among employees to the same extent that they allow other types of personal expression that are not harassing or disruptive.
• Once an employer is on notice that an employee objects to religious conduct that is directed at him or her, the employer should take steps to end the conduct because even conduct that the employer does not regard as abusive can become sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the conditions of employment if allowed to persist in the face of the employee’s objection.
• If harassment is perpetrated by a non-employee assigned by a contractor, the supervisor or other appropriate individual in the chain of command should initiate a meeting with the contractor regarding the harassment and demand that it cease, that appropriate disciplinary action be taken if it continues, and/or that a different individual be assigned by the contractor.
• To prevent conflicts from escalating to the level of a Title VII violation, employers should immediately intervene when they become aware of objectively abusive or insulting conduct, even absent a complaint.
• Employers should encourage managers to intervene proactively and discuss with subordinates whether particular religious expression is welcome if the manager believes the expression might be construed as harassing to a reasonable person.
• While supervisors are permitted to engage in certain religious expression, they should avoid expression that might – due to their supervisory authority – reasonably be perceived by subordinates as coercive, even when not so intended.

Reasonable Accommodation

• Employers should inform employees that they will make reasonable efforts to accommodate the employees’ religious practices.
• Employers should train managers and supervisors on how to recognize religious accommodation requests from employees.
• Employers should consider developing internal procedures for processing religious accommodation requests.
• Employers should individually assess each request and avoid assumptions or stereotypes about what constitutes a religious belief or practice or what type of accommodation is appropriate.
• Employers and employees should confer fully and promptly to the extent needed to share any necessary information about the employee’s religious needs and the available accommodation options.
• An employer is not required to provide an employee’s preferred accommodation if there is more than one effective alternative to choose from. An employer should, however, consider the employee’s proposed method of accommodation, and if it is denied, explain to the employee why his proposed accommodation is not being granted.
• Managers and supervisors should be trained to consider alternative available accommodations if the particular accommodation requested would pose an undue hardship.
• When faced with a request for a religious accommodation which cannot be promptly implemented, an employer should consider offering alternative methods of accommodation on a temporary basis, while a permanent accommodation is being explored. In this situation, an employer should also keep the employee apprised of the status of the employer’s efforts to implement a permanent accommodation.

Undue Hardship

• The de minimis undue hardship standard refers to the legal requirement. As with all aspects of employee relations, employers can go beyond the requirements of the law and should be flexible in evaluating whether or not an accommodation is feasible.
• An employer should not assume that an accommodation will conflict with the terms of a seniority system or CBA without first checking if there are any exceptions for religious accommodation or other avenues to allow accommodation consistent with the seniority system or CBA.
• An employer should not automatically reject a request for religious accommodation just because the accommodation will interfere with the existing seniority system or terms of a CBA. Although an employer may not upset co-workers’ settled expectations, an employer is free to seek a voluntary modification to a CBA in order to accommodate an employee’s religious needs.
• Employers should train managers to be aware that, if the requested accommodation would violate the CBA or seniority system, they should confer with the employee to determine if an alternative accommodation is available.
• Employers should ensure that managers are aware that reasonable accommodation may require making exceptions to policies or procedures that are not part of a CBA or seniority system, where it would not infringe on other employees’ legitimate expectations.

Schedule Changes

• Employers should work with employees who need an adjustment to their work schedule to accommodate their religious practices.
• Notwithstanding that the legal standard for undue hardship is “more than de minimis,” employers may of course choose voluntarily to incur whatever additional operational or financial costs they deem appropriate to accommodate an employee’s religious need for scheduling flexibility.
• Employers should consider adopting flexible leave and scheduling policies and procedures that will often allow employees to meet their religious and other personal needs. Such policies can reduce individual requests for exceptions. For example, some employers have policies allowing alternative work schedules and/or a certain number of “floating” holidays for each employee. While such policies may not cover every eventuality and some individual accommodations may still be needed, the number of such individual accommodations may be substantially reduced.

Voluntary Substitutes or Swaps

• An employer should facilitate and encourage voluntary substitutions and swaps with employees of substantially similar qualifications by publicizing its policy permitting such arrangements, promoting an atmosphere in which substitutes are favorably regarded, and providing a central file, bulletin board, group e-mail, or other means to help an employee with a religious conflict find a volunteer to substitute or swap.

Change of Job Assignments and Lateral Transfers

• An employer should consider a lateral transfer when no accommodation which would keep the employee in his or her position is possible absent undue hardship. However, an employer should only resort to transfer, whether lateral or otherwise, after fully exploring accommodations that would permit the employee to remain in his position.
• Where a lateral transfer is unavailable, an employer should not assume that an employee would not be interested in a lower-paying position if that position would enable the employee to abide by his or her religious beliefs. If there is no accommodation available that would permit the employee to remain in his current position or an equivalent one, the employer should offer the available position as an accommodation and permit the employee to decide whether or not to take it.

Modifying Workplace Practices, Policies, and Procedures

• Employers should make efforts to accommodate an employee’s desire to wear a yarmulke, hijab, or other religious garb. If the employer is concerned about uniform appearance in a position which involves interaction with the public, it may be appropriate to consider whether the employee’s religious views would permit him to resolve the religious conflict by, for example, wearing the item of religious garb in the company uniform color(s).
• Managers and employees should be trained not to engage in stereotyping based on religious dress and grooming practices and should not assume that atypical dress will create an undue hardship.
• Employers should be flexible and creative regarding work schedules, work duties, and selection procedures to the extent practicable.
• Employers should be sensitive to the risk of unintentionally pressuring or coercing employees to attend social gatherings after the employees have indicated a religious objection to attending.

Permitting Prayer, Proselytizing, and Other Forms of Religious Expression

• Employers should train managers to gauge the actual disruption posed by religious expression in the workplace, rather than merely speculating that disruption may result. Employers should also train managers to identify alternative accommodations that might be offered to avoid actual disruption (e.g., designating an unused or private location in the workplace where a prayer session or Bible study meeting can occur if it is disrupting other workers).
• Employers should incorporate a discussion of religious expression, and the need for all employees to be sensitive to the beliefs or non-beliefs of others, into any anti-harassment training provided to managers and employees.

Retaliation

• Employers can reduce the risk of retaliation claims by training managers and supervisors to be aware of their anti-retaliation obligations under Title VII, including specific actions that may constitute retaliation.
• Employers can help reduce the risk of retaliation claims by carefully and timely recording the accurate business reasons for disciplinary or performance related actions and sharing these reasons with the employee.

Employee Best Practices

• Employees who are the recipients of unwelcome religious conduct should inform the individual engaging in the conduct that they wish it to stop. If the conduct does not stop, employees should report it to their supervisor or other appropriate company official in accordance with the procedures established in the company’s anti-harassment policy.
• Employees who do not wish to personally confront an individual who is directing unwelcome religious or anti-religious conduct towards them should report the conduct to their supervisor or other appropriate company official in accordance with the company’s anti-harassment policy.
• Employees should advise their supervisors or managers of the nature of the conflict between their religious needs and the work rules.
• Employees should provide enough information to enable the employer to understand what accommodation is needed, and why it is necessitated by a religious practice or belief.
• Employees who seek to proselytize in the workplace should cease doing so with respect to any individual who indicates that the communications are unwelcome.

Recently, while watching the news, I saw an online video clip of a Burger King employee taking a bath in the Burger King sink. There he was, suds and all and (to borrow from McDonalds) "lovin' it." The report concluded by remarking the young man (and his fellow employees) no longer work at BK.

This is just one example of what you put into cyberspace may hurt you and can be used in ways you might not have thought about. We're just beginning to see how this is playing out in business and in law.

I've seen HR people advised to do a Google search on employment prospects and to review the first ten pages of results. Elsewhere I've spoken to corporate officers who have commented on how a LinkedIn or Social Networking Sites Help Vet Jurors, and consider how social network sites may be being used to examine jurors.

Jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn, mentioned in Kay's article, explains he advises his clients [lawyers],

to keep information gleaned off the Internet hush-hush... [and] use it for peremptory strikes, without giving any indication why the person is being bounced...

This is done so other jurors won't learn their being investigated and to prevent potential backlash. Speaking of trial tactics observed after a jury was chosen, Hirschhorn adds,

...he is just now starting to see lawyers use information in opening and closings. For example, a lawyer discovered from a person's MySpace page that his favorite book was The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, and found a way to subtly include that reference into his closing arguments.

While some of these ideas many not be new to trial lawyers and jury consultants, they probably are new to those who are sitting on a jury or applying for their first job. Beware what you post, once it's out there, there's no taking it back...

Often it's tempting to take an legal document found on the internet (sometimes prepared by a lawyer), make a few changes, and recycle the attorney's language to create any number of legal documents. Massachusetts consumers and businesses are smart and think, "Why pay a lawyer in Massachusetts when it's available for free online?" In some cases perhaps they could be right, in others they could be disastrously wrong. The key is to know the difference and that's where consumers and businesses can often fail. Is it worth the risk? Can what you don't know hurt you? Some examples to consider before answering:

LANGUAGE ISSUES

Real Estate Law - A party signs a "Standard Form" Offer or "Standard" Purchase and Sale Agreement, but later learns there were some key changes made to a few important words in the "standard" agreement. Just because it says "standard" don't think it is.

Employment or Discrimination Law - A company fires an employee and offers a severance package. The employee signs the severance agreement and cashes the severance check. Later the employee sues for age discrimination on the basis that the Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA") was not explicitly followed. Why? Because the severance agreement made reference to 154 employees being affected by the terminations when, in fact, only 152 employees were. A federal court case covered in a Labor & Employment Law Update, Peterson v. Seagate, No. 07-2502, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42179 (D. Minn. May 28, 2008), dealt with these facts. Here the employee's release was void, the employee kept the severance money, and the employee could also sue the employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").

Divorce Law - An unsuspecting spouse signs the divorce agreement with all kinds of technical language concerning taxes and other issues which the other spouse has had reviewed by his or her lawyer, but tells you he or she just got it off the internet.

PROCESS ISSUES

In other cases, it's not just the language but also the process that must be followed to insure your wishes are followed.

Will - A parent has two adult children: one is a loving caregiver and the other hasn't been heard from in years. The parent decides to make a will leaving everything to the caregiver. The caregiver signs the will as a witness. Did you know the caregiver could now receive nothing and the other child everything?

Business Law or Trusts - A couple forms an LLC or Trust but fails to follow the steps needed to treat the LLC or Trust as a separate legal entity. The LLC or trust may end up providing no protection and leading to liability which hadn't been properly planned for.

Real Estate Deed - A simple deed is taken from the internet or copied from the public records at the local Registry of Deeds. Names are substituted and the deal goes forward. Later the buyer learns a probate estate matter was involved and the government has a lien against the property. This would have been found if a customary title exam was conducted. Guess who may now be on the hook for the lien amount?

RULES VS. PRINCIPLES

Last night, after a quick run from Weymouth to Hingham and back, I was reading a Law Practice article discussing the difference between our legal system and the U.K.'s approach to electronic evidence and discovery issues ("e-discovery") ("electronic data discovery" or "electronic data disclosure" known as "EDD"). The article contained a comment that I found interesting:

All the interviewees agreed that in the U.K. EDD is principles based, whereas in the United States it's rule based. Everyone believed that this is the biggest difference-and that the principles-based system is better.

While this is a good theoretical point to consider in reviewing this new area of law, it's not a debate you want to find yourself dealing with in a case that involves your interests. As you can see from above, our rules-based laws can lead to results that may not always agree with your principles or your intent. Think twice the next time you cut and paste.  Often when a legal document is involved, there's something of real value at stake.  Most times when a client asks me to look at "something" they found on the internet, it has serious flaws when applied to their specific circumstances.  Luckily, we can fix this before it's too late.  Those who come in after the fact and seeking help -- they don't tend to make the same costly mistake twice.

Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities in Massachusetts disability cases, arising under Federal and MA Discrimination laws, may have different meanings in different contexts.

If you are being discriminated against due to a disability or perceived disability there may be a number of legal claims for you to consider to aid in protecting your rights.The enforcement of disability discrimination laws can involve different courts or commissions and may require various types of expert evidence and testimony.

The MA Disability Law Center offers a chart on Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities and provides some examples of legal resources which may be available as a starting place.

Attorney John Parry has authored the book, Disability Discrimination Law, Evidence and Testimony. A Comprehensive Reference Manual for Lawyers, Judges and Disability Professionals, which covers a host of topics your lawyer or disability advocate may consider in handling your disability discrimination case.

Additionally, The Massachusetts Office on Disability (MOD) has prepared an online pamphlet to:

increase awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities, both by persons with disabilities themselves and by the larger community. Other goals of the Office include: the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities; the creation of a barrier free environment; the improvement of the state’s services delivery system for persons with disabilities, and the creation of fully integrated and accessible education, housing, transportation and employment in the public and private sectors.

Topics listed include:

• INTRODUCTION
• ABUSE / NEGLECT / TREATMENT CONDITIONS
• ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS
• AUTOMOBILES & TRANSPORTATION
• DISABILITY COMMISSIONS
• EDUCATION
• EMPLOYMENT
• EQUAL RIGHTS
• HATE CRIMES
• HOUSING
• PUBLIC PLACES & PROGRAMS
• SERVICE ANIMALS
• TELECOMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY
• VOTING
• WHEELCHAIRS
• ZONING

Attorney Kevin Whitaker serves as a town councilor and as an appointed member of the Town of Weymouth, MA Commission on Disabilities.

Do you submit confidential documents to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)?

David A. Skidmore, Jr. and William F. Becker in a Frost Brown Todd LLC Client Advisory, "Take care when providing proprietary or confidential information to the EEOC", discuss issues a company should consider when making an EEOC filing. Their article follows from their reading of Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. EEOC, decided June 27, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals:

First, employers should not submit information assuming that it will be treated by the EEOC as confidential. Second, if sensitive information is submitted to the EEOC, just labeling it “confidential” may not be enough to assure that the EEOC will provide notice before disclosing the information to anyone who asks for it. The Court of Appeals specifically stated that “. . . disclosure of information does not violate the [Trade Secrets Act] merely because that information was labeled ‘confidential’ by the submitter.”

At a minimum, confidential information submitted to the EEOC should include prominent notice that it is confidential, an explanation of how disclosure would cause “substantial harm to your company’s competitive position,” and a request that notice be given before the information is disclosed in response to a FOIA request.

The United States Supreme Court has been active on the employment front this term. Previous posts discussed some of these cases, but the newest ruling (Meacham ET AL v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, AKA KAPL, Inc., ET AL.) takes up a disparate-impact
claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq.

The company reduced its work force by having managers score subordinates on “performance,” “flexibility,” and “critical skills”; these scores, along with points for years of service, were used to determine who was laid off. Of the 31 employees let go, 30 were at least 40 years old and a ADEA claim followed.

The holding in this case places the burden of proof on employers when the termination involves an an older worker. This creates additional issues an employer must be prepared to prove. Here the employer must prove the termination was based on reasonable factors other than age (RFOA) by:

1) Producing evidence affirmatively raising the defense, and

2) Persuading the factfinder of the merits of this defense.

The case creates important considerations for both employers and employees in considering an ADEA claim. The result will certainly create additional costs for businesses but is being hailed as a victory for elder law advocates.

Age Discrimination

A Supreme Court decision extends federal workers' rights in filing age-bias suits by a vote of (6-3). A U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston's ruling (upholding a lower court's dismissal) was overturned. The ruling allows federal employees retaliated against (because of their discrimination complaints) to pursue lawsuits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Prior to this case, it was argued the ADEA only applied to private sector workers. This case establishes it applies to federal employees as well.

Racial Discrimination

Also, in a vote (7-2), the Supreme Court ruled a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (known as known as section 1981) covers claims of retaliation following complaints about discrimination based on race. The dissents in both these cases were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. While Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in only in the age bias case, he was with the majority in the racial discrimination case.

With rights expanding, the question becomes how do you prove discrimination. This led to interest in the "me too" evidence case. However, for now no new answers emerge form the Court on this issue.

Me Too Evidence

George Lenard, reports on his blog, George's Employment Blawg, in detail about the issue of "me too" evidence in discrimination cases:

In its recent unanimous decision in Sprint v. Mendelsohn, the Supreme Court largely avoided the tough issue before it: admissibility of “me-too” evidence in discrimination cases — testimony of other employees who believed they too had been discriminated against.

Genetic Information Discrimination On May 21, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) protecting people from discrimination based on genetic material. GINA becomes effective November 21, 2009. A general "primer" on GINA is covered at the Genetic Genealogist.

All and all, May has been a discriminating month...

Today I spoke with a woman who is considering a severance package from her employer. While there were other issues involved, one of the questions she asked is, "Am I entitled to see my personnel file."

In Massachusetts, the answer is yes. Massachusetts employees have the right of access their personnel records when they make a written request to their employer. An employee generally has three options available to them concerning the materials contained in their record:

   1. When an employee disagrees with information in their personnel file, then the information can be corrected or removed by employer.

   2. If the information is not corrected or removed then the employee may write a statement and have the statement added to their file.

   3. If an employee knows material in their file is false, then the employee may seek its removal through a collective bargaining agreement, other personnel procedures, or in judicial process to have the information expunged.

The law defines, "Personnel record" as,

a record kept by an employer that identifies an employee, to the extent that the record is used or has been used, or may affect or be used relative to that employee’s qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation or disciplinary action. A personnel record shall include a record in the possession of a person, corporation, partnership or other association that has a contractual agreement with the employer to keep or supply a personnel record as provided in this section. A personnel record shall not include information of a personal nature about a person other than the employee if disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of such other person’s privacy. Without limiting the applicability or generality of the foregoing, all of the following written information or documents to the extent prepared by an employer of twenty or more employees regarding an employee shall be included in the personnel record for that employee: the name, address, date of birth, job title and description; rate of pay and any other compensation paid to the employee; starting date of employment; the job application of the employee; resumes or other forms of employment inquiry submitted to the employer in response to his advertisement by the employee; all employee performance evaluations, including but not limited to, employee evaluation documents; written warnings of substandard performance; lists of probationary periods; waivers signed by the employee; copies of dated termination notices; any other documents relating to disciplinary action regarding the employee. A personnel record shall be maintained in typewritten or printed form or may be handwritten in indelible ink.

In addition to the requirements found in Chapter 149, Section 52C: "Personnel records; review by employee; corrections; penalty", an employee may obtain their employment records in lawsuits or other matters involving administrative agencies and employment matters.

Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law: Attorney General Guidelines and Three Prong Test for Independent Contractors

The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General has issued an Advisory regarding M.G.L. c. 149, s. 148B, to provide “guidance” on the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law or the Massachusetts Misclassification Law.

Under M.G.L. c. 149, s. 148B(d), an employer violates the law when two acts occur.

1. An employer classifies or treats an individual other than as an employee and the worker fails to meet the following three prong test (each is required for an individual or independent contractor to be classified other than as an employee): a. Is the individual free from control and direction in connection with the performance and service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact?

b. Are the services the individual performs outside the usual course of business of the employer?

c. Is the individual customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed?

2. In receiving services from the individual, the employer violates one or more of the following:

a. The wage and hour laws set forth in M.G.L. c. 149.

b. The minimum wage law set out in M.G.L. c. 151, s. 1A, 1B, and 19; 455 CMR 2.01, et seq.

c. The overtime law set forth in M.G.L. c. 151, s. 1, 1A, 1B, and 19.

d. The law requiring employers to keep true and accurate employee payroll records, and to furnish the records to the Attorney General upon request as required by M.G.L. c. 151, s. 15.

e. Provisions requiring employers to take and pay over withholding taxes on employee wages. M.G.L. c. 62B. (purposes of income tax withholding, M.G.L. c. 62B provides a definition of employee that differs from the three prong test in M.G.L. c. 149, s. 148B.)

f. The worker’s compensation provisions punishing knowing misclassification of an employee. M.G.L. c. 152, s. 14.

The advisory arrives at a time when employer liability concerns in Massachusetts' employment matters are growing. See my prior post, New Massachusetts Wage and Employment Law: Tougher on Employers, Better for Employees and Unions, on this topic and a May 6, 2008 email/MCLE Press Release stating,

Just two weeks ago, legislation mandating treble damages for prevailing wage-and-hour plaintiffs was passed, considerably raising the stakes for independent contractor classification and other wage and hour issues. See 2008 Mass. Acts c. 80 (formerly Mass. Senate Bill No. 1059). The new law will be effective July 13, 2008.

With the potential for treble (triple) damages around the corner, now is a good time for all businesses to review both their employment and independent contractor agreements and practices.

LAW PASSED: A new Massachusetts labor or wage law will create treble (triple) damages against companies in wage and hour violation cases. This departs from federal courts and other states where an employer can raise a “good faith” defense and avoid treble damages.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports,

“Previously, under a 2005 Supreme Judicial Court decision, treble damages were available only in cases in which the court concluded that an employer had willfully and intentionally committed an infraction.”

“…the [Massachusetts] Legislature passed a bill on April 15 that makes Massachusetts the first state in the country to impose automatic treble damages against any business that violates wage and hour laws.”

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT: From a Massachusetts employee's perspective, this new labor law provides an incentive for employees and their lawyers to pursue claims. A $10,000 claim is now a $30,000 claim, plus attorneys’ fees. Apply this multiplier to multiple claimants and the numbers can add up quickly.

UNION ORGANIZING BENEFIT: Labor unions should celebrate this law’s enactment. From their perspective, this law will provide an additional tool for protecting employees’ wages.

Additionally, it may become a useful tool for union organizers who come across wage claim violations in non-unionized companies. Organizers can educate employees of their rights; motivate an employee to pursue a claim; and then use the cost and risk of litigation as a bargaining chip against a target company. I’ve seen this work with success in past organizing campaigns involving National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaints. With even higher stakes involved in Massachusetts wage cases now, I wouldn't be surprised to see this organizing strategy emerge on every union organizer’s radar soon.

DEFENSE STRATEGY: Nevertheless, the new threat of triple damages and attorneys fees in Massachusetts alone will likely impact the manner in which these cases are defended against. Defending these cases will require a reasonable assessment of the facts as well as the potential liabilities created by the new law. As in many areas of law, prevention still works best.

WAGE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: With higher liability exposure in Massachusetts, companies doing business here would be well served to review their procedures on wage issues, as well as their dispute resolution practices and procedures best suited for these and other disputes. It makes sense for companies of any size to establish a relationship with a lawyer who can respond to an issue when it arises, or even better, before.

LIVING WAGES & FAIRNESS: A recent Massachusetts AFL-CIO Weekly Labor Reader dated Friday April 18, 2008, quoted past U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level - I mean the wages of decent living."

Every person is entitled to the pay they earn as an employee. At the same time, good employers who are trying to do right by their employees and are providing a living wage also deserve protection, especially in this tough economy.

Full disclosure, I had attended and graduated from the AFL-CIO Organizing Institute before organizing for several unions around the nation. My experiences there and elsewhere helped guide me in deciding to attend law school. I now represent both employers and employees.

Sexual harassment (or discrimination) in Massachusetts workplaces can take many forms creating liability for both individuals and companies. Earlier today, I talked with a good friend about his first day in a new job. Day one consisted of him filling out the usual forms, making introductions, and watching a video on sexual harassment in the workplace. He summed up his new company's sexual discrimination policy as, “don’t look, don’t touch.” While that may be a good message to absorb on day one, as a manager who could subject both his company and himself to liability under sexual harassment law, it may be helpful to know a bit more about it.

Formal workplace sexual harassment standards are set forth in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 151B. Additionally, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) issues guidelines regarding sexual harassment and what employees and employers should do to prevent, stop and respond to sexual harassment complaints. Two nonexclusive types of sexual harassment are known as: "quid pro quo" and "hostile work environment" harassment.

Quid pro quo harassment involves “sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when … submission to or rejection of such advances, requests or conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment or as a basis for employment decisions.”

Hostile Work Environment harassment includes “sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when … such advances, requests or conduct have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or sexually offensive work environment.”

Examples offered by MCAD of each type are:

quid pro quo harassment: termination; demotion; denial of promotion; transfer; alteration of duties, hours or compensation; or unjustified performance reviews.

hostile work environment: inappropriate touching; sexual epithets, jokes, gossip, sexual conduct or comments; requests for sex; displaying sexually suggestive pictures and objects; and leering, whistling, or sexual gestures.

While sexual harassment jokes may be funny in movies or sitcoms, discrimination can be devastating for someone suffering it in their employment. If you are the target of or subject to sexual harassment at the workplace then you need to act to preserve your rights in Massachusetts. While Massachusetts law did require claims to be filed within six months, changes in the law have extended the filing deadline to 300 days. Of course, laws and deadlines can change. Massachusetts discrimination and employment law has many nuances best navigated by a lawyer who takes the time to hear your case, identifies the applicable law, and knows how to protect your rights. Whether you work on the South Shore, are appearing in Boston before the MCAD, or have a claim best suited for Superior Court, don’t proceed without knowing your rights and how to protect them.

Residential real estate deals in Massachusetts can lead to the repair or replacement of failed cesspool or septic systems (Title V). They can also involve issues dealing with lead paint abatement. These are examples of only a couple of tax credits (cesspool or septic/sewer or lead paint) which may be available to you.

For seniors, the DOR publication, Tips for Seniors and Retirees: Deductions, Exemptions and 2007 “Circuit Breaker” Tax Credit, is a useful resource for understanding how the 2007 “Circuit Breaker” Tax Credit works.

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue lists Tax Credits (2007) for Individuals and Families and includes: a description of the credit, calculation of the credit, where to calculate the credit, whether the credit is refundable or not refundable, and if there if carryover is permitted. Credits to consider (this is not tax advice) include but are not limited to:

Brownfields Credit for Rehabilitation of Contaminated Property, Earned Income Credit (EIC), Economic Opportunity Area Credit (EOAC), Film Incentive Credit, Full Employment Credit, Historic Rehabilitation Credit, Home Energy Efficiency Heating Credit Carryover to 2007, Lead Paint Removal Credit, Limited Income Credit (LIC), Massachusetts Low Income Housing Credit, Medical Device Tax Credit, Real Estate Tax Credit for Persons Age 65 and Older (known as the Circuit Breaker Credit), Repair or Replacement of Failed Cesspool or Septic System Credit (Title V), Solar Wind and Energy Credit, and Taxes Paid to Other Jurisdictions Credit.

Additionally, the DOR Web Services for Income (WSI) is a website where individuals and tax professionals can use many online services related to personal income taxes.