Massachusetts Lawyer Blog

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 know what's being said about you on the internet? Whether you're a Massachusetts small business owner, an individual, or a parent, are you monitoring the conversations about you, your business, or your family taking place on the internet?

Check out What Should Every Company Be Monitoring? for a list of ideas.

You can't respond to what you don't know about. I use alerts and RSS feeds to help stay on top of issues and conversations involving our Weymouth, MA law firm and our Massachusetts clients. With more and more reputation attacks and defamation cases arising on the internet (as well as speculative and plainly erroneous information), this is likely to be growth area in law and business.

This morning my daughter suggested we take the net (from that game where you hit the thing that looks like an empty ice cream cone) and use it to play volleyball.  I knew immediately she was talking about the net from the old badminton set because the "empty ice cream cone" was certainly the birdie we hit back and forth about a month ago.  In communication and in law context is everything -- both combined can lead to real value.

You shouldn't need to talk in legal mumbo jumbo to get your point across or to achieve the result you desire.  Find a lawyer who knows the law but also gets where you are coming from.  Seek out an attorney who will invest in building a relationship with you.  This is the foundation for providing value -- a real value that seeks to first understand and then meet your needs.  Anything else is just an empty ice cream cone...

In Blank Rome's Newsletter, Ninth Circuit Ruling Raises Stakes for Companies and Individuals Facing Parallel Civil and Criminal Investigations By: Matthew D. Lee and Tyler Brody, they discuss issues raised in a case were a civil governmental investigation was being coordinated with criminal investigations, United States v. Stringer, 521 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008) Download Case.

The criminal investigations were slowed down and not overtly acted upon so the civil investigation could proceed and obtain statements which would not likely to be provided in a criminal case.  Here, the civil and criminal activities were closely coordinated and the civil investigators were even instructed on how to ask questions in depositions to help build the government's criminal case.  When the target's attorney asked about the possibility of a criminal investigation, despite knowing in was ongoing, the civil investigation did not need to disclose this fact when an SEC Form 1662 was provided which makes a blanket statement that information collected may be shared with other governmental agencies.

The Blank Rome article states:

The impact of the Stringer decision on how counsel should approach the defense of a civil investigation cannot be under - stated. Defense attorneys must be aware that their clients can potentially, and unknowingly, waive their Fifth Amendment rights after they are given minimal notice by civil investigators. Thus, even if a government investigation appears to be merely civil in nature, an astute defense attorney must anticipate the possibility that the civil attorneys are working with, or taking direction from, prosecutors seeking to build a criminal case. Counsel also must realize that, simply because the existence of criminal investigation is not readily apparent, does not mean that one is not underway, especially if their clients are cooperating with civil investigators. Indeed, Stringer allows criminal and civil investigators to conceal a significant amount of collaboration and joint strategic planning without triggering concerns that the government is acting in bad faith.

They conclude:

The Stringer decision shows that defense counsel should handle the defense of a client subject to a civil investigation as though it were criminal, and strongly consider the extent to which their clients should be cooperating with government lawyers, particularly where the lawyer knows that the client may have criminal exposure. Because the result of Stringer affords government lawyers so much leeway in using evidence collected in a civil investigation to build a criminal case, counsel must be careful not to allow their clients to supply the government with the proverbial rope with which they will ultimately be hung.

James Vaznis of the Boston Globe reports,

A Middlesex Superior Court jury has decided that the City of Cambridge should pay a former employee more than $4.5 million, after the jury found that the city retaliated against the woman for filing a discrimination case nearly 10 years ago. ...

The jury included $3.5 million in punitive damages. The city intends to appeal.

Massachusetts law does not allow employers to retaliate against employees for their discrimination complaints.

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...

A study entitled Legal Liability: The Consequences of School Injury in the Journal of School Health, May 2007, Vol. 77, No. 5, (Abstract only) examined cases involving schools, lawsuits, and injuries. Schools paid awards about 2/3 of the time, either by verdict (26.8%) or settlement (40.4%). The average case lasted just under 4 years from the time of injury to the case’s resolution by trial or settlement. Surprisingly, they found it difficult to predict the cases resulting in an award, stating: “this study found no difference on any case characteristics between cases that resulted in awards and those that did not.”

They authors concluded,

Many of the injuries documented in this study may have been prevented through better maintenance of school facilities, equipment and playing fields; addition of safety features and equipment; improved supervision of students; education of school officials, students, and parents; and enforcement of building codes and rules, especially during sports and recreational activity.

Award Range: $1 to $15,398,762; Mean: $562,915; Median: $50,000; 25th percentile: $9,750; and 75th percentile: $300,000.

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.

Public records can be helpful in government matters but also for business purposes, in automobile and personal injury cases, or many others types of litigation.

People sometime ask, "How do I get a copy of a local government record?" In Massachusetts, the Secretary of State has published A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, updated January 2008.

Records are presumed public unless they fall under one of sixteen exclusions, but fees may be charged to obtain them.

The difference between the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Massachusetts Public Records Law is FOIA applies to federal records while the Massachusetts Public Records Law applies to state and local records.

Lawyers are generally aware of changes in court rules that deal with electronic evidence, but many small businesses don’t have inside counsel or general counsel available to them who can keep them apprised of what to do and also, what not to do. An article in Law Technology Today: March/April 2008, “Are You Litigation Ready?” by Matthew W. Blake, found,

Most American corporations are ill-prepared to respond to electronic discovery requests and go to court. … In a survey of more than 100 information technology managers in medium and large American corporations, only 6 percent said they “immediately and confidently” can field electronic discovery requests. Just 9 percent told pollsters they receive proper legal guidance and funding for electronic discovery procedures; 40 percent said they receive no guidance at all. Fewer than half feel they have IT professionals competent to testify in court regarding electronically stored information (ESI). More than half said their companies have no enterprise search tools. Three-fourths lack effective e-mail intelligence systems.

Blake recommends taking these three steps: Assess What You Have; Map Out Your Data; and Strengthen Your “Hold” on the Data Giant

He argues failure to take these steps can lead to increased future litigation costs. I agree and would add that failure to take the right steps could also lead to sanctions, fees, and liability in matters that were not handled the way they should have been. Is your Massachusetts business ready for these issues if you were sued today? Do you have a lawyer who understands litigation, local rules of court, and can advise your managers and IT staff on what to do to protect your business interests? As the saying goes, "forewarned is forearmed."

Massachusetts affordable housing projects under M.G.L. Ch. 40B are often criticized for limiting a local board’s powers to regulate development in a city or town. Proponents, on the other hand, argue the law helps promote new affordable housing developments. It is not uncommon for 40B projects to make headlines in local papers and for developers, municipalities, residents, and interest groups to be outspoken on this issue.

Regardless of one’s position on 40B, there are fundamental questions of power and legal authority that arise. Local boards and authorities are likely to applaud a recent SJC opinion concerning 40B and easements.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled the Housing Appeals Committee (Committee) of the Department of Housing and Community Development exceeded its authority under G.L. c. 40B (Affordable Housing Act) by ordering conveyance of a sight line easement on a town's property. This case establishes the Committee has the power to grant permits or approvals like a local board, but not the power to order the conveyance of an easement.

The opinion reasons, an easement is an interest in land which grants to one person the right to use or enjoy land owned by another; the grant of an easement constitutes the transfer of an interest in land; the fact that an easement may encumber only a small portion of an owner's land does not change its legal significance; and the Act does not authorize the Committee to order the conveyance of an easement over land abutting the project site of a proposed affordable housing development.

The SJC distinguished this decision from Board of Appeals of Maynard v. Housing Appeals Comm., 370 Mass. 64 (1976)>. The Maynard case involved the extension of a sewer line (under G.L. c. 83), for which the developer, and not the public, agreed to bear all costs – it did not involve, nor authorize, the transfer of an interest in municipal land in the form of a mandated easement.

See Slip Opinion: SJC-10028 until published, Zoning Board of Appeals of Groton & others vs. Housing Appeals Committee and another.