Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Susan Miele was hired by Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI) in 2017 and signed a restrictive covenant agreement that included a nonsolicitation provision. In 2020, Miele and FMI executed a transition agreement upon her separation, which incorporated the restrictive covenant agreement and included a forfeiture clause. FMI paid Miele approximately $1.2 million in transition benefits. After joining Ginkgo Bioworks in 2021, Miele allegedly solicited FMI employees to join Ginkgo, leading FMI to cease further payments and demand repayment of benefits.Miele sued FMI in late 2021 for breach of the transition agreement, and FMI counterclaimed for breach of contract. Miele moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the provisions FMI relied on were unenforceable under the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act. A Superior Court judge granted Miele's motion in part, ruling that FMI could not enforce the forfeiture provision but allowed FMI to assert Miele's breach as a defense and seek damages. The judge concluded that the transition agreement qualified as a "forfeiture for competition agreement" under the act.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act does not apply to a nonsolicitation agreement, even if it includes a forfeiture provision. The court reasoned that the act explicitly excludes nonsolicitation agreements from its scope, and a forfeiture clause does not change this exclusion. The court reversed the Superior Court's order partially granting Miele's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Miele v. Foundation Medicine, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2023, Kenneth Bresler, a former Appeals Court staff attorney, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court against three Appeals Court employees, Lynn Muster, Mary Bowe, and Gina DeRossi, alleging intentional interference with advantageous relations. Bresler claimed that the defendants engaged in a campaign that led to his termination. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Bresler failed to establish the "actual malice" required for such a claim and that they were entitled to common-law immunity as public officials.The Superior Court judge granted the motion to dismiss for Bowe and DeRossi but denied it for Muster. Bresler appealed the dismissal of Bowe and DeRossi, while Muster cross-appealed the partial denial of her motion to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court granted Bresler's application for direct appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and concluded that the allegations in the complaint, when taken as true, plausibly suggested that Muster and Bowe acted with "actual malice," which is necessary to state an intentional interference claim. The court found that Muster's actions, motivated by jealousy and hostility, and Bowe's subsequent negative evaluations and actions against Bresler, supported the inference of actual malice. However, the court held that the complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to establish actual malice or defeat common-law immunity for DeRossi.As a result, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court's order as to Muster and DeRossi and reversed it as to Bowe, allowing the claims against Muster and Bowe to proceed while dismissing the claims against DeRossi. View "Bresler v. Muster" on Justia Law

Sergeant John Babcock, a member of the Newton police department, was transferred from his position as a traffic sergeant with regular daytime hours to a night shift sergeant position. This transfer occurred after Babcock had been actively involved in union activities, including disputes with the police chief, David MacDonald. Despite receiving an eight percent pay increase as stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), Babcock's new position required him to work irregular nighttime hours, weekends, and holidays, which he claimed negatively impacted his family life.The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) reviewed the case after the union filed a charge of prohibited practice, alleging that the transfer was retaliatory. The hearing officer initially found that while the transfer was an adverse employment action and the union had established a prima facie case of retaliation, the city had rebutted this by producing evidence of Babcock's insubordination and misconduct. The hearing officer concluded that the city's reasons for the transfer were legitimate and dismissed the complaint.Upon appeal, the CERB disagreed with the hearing officer's conclusion, finding that the city failed to produce evidence that Babcock's misconduct was the reason for his transfer. The CERB determined that the transfer was indeed retaliatory and ordered that Babcock be reinstated to his previous position.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the CERB's decision. The court held that Babcock's transfer constituted an adverse employment action despite the pay increase, as it resulted in a material disadvantage in the terms and conditions of his employment. The court also concluded that a generally good work record is not a necessary element to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The city's failure to produce evidence linking Babcock's misconduct to the transfer decision meant that the union's prima facie case of retaliation remained unrebutted. View "City of Newton v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board" on Justia Law

Jeff Stacy, a lineman for Unitil Corporation, continued working during the COVID-19 pandemic as his job was classified as an essential service. Despite the Governor's orders to shut down nonessential businesses, Stacy worked closely with colleagues, which led to his exposure to the virus. In February 2021, after working overtime during snowstorms, Stacy contracted COVID-19 from a coworker, resulting in severe illness and total disability. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, which were initially denied by his employer's insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut.An administrative judge from the Department of Industrial Accidents held an evidentiary hearing and ruled in favor of Stacy, finding that the risk of contracting COVID-19 was inherent in his employment during the pandemic. The judge noted that Stacy's job required close physical proximity to coworkers, increasing his risk of infection. The Industrial Accident Reviewing Board affirmed the judge's decision, adopting the factual findings and concluding that the decision was supported by adequate evidence and reasoned decision-making.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the board's decision. The court held that the board's determination that the risk of contracting COVID-19 was inherent in Stacy's employment was not arbitrary or capricious. The court emphasized that Stacy's role as an essential worker, who continued to work closely with others during a time when most businesses were closed and social distancing was mandated, justified the finding that his employment posed a unique risk of infection. Thus, Stacy's claim for workers' compensation benefits was upheld. View "Stacy's Case" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Matthew Theisz, was assaulted by an MBTA bus driver with a known history of anger management issues and prior violent incidents. The MBTA had hired, promoted, and retained the driver despite his problematic behavior, including a previous assault on a passenger and an arrest following a confrontation with a police officer. On the day of the incident, Theisz, lost and frustrated, attempted to get the driver's attention, leading to a violent altercation where the driver severely beat him, resulting in a traumatic brain injury.The Superior Court denied the MBTA's motion for summary judgment, which argued that it was immune from liability under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), specifically G. L. c. 258, § 10 (j). The MBTA contended that the claim was based on a failure to prevent harm by a third person. The Appeals Court affirmed the denial, and the MBTA sought further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that § 10 (j) does not provide immunity to the MBTA for its own negligence in hiring, promoting, retaining, and supervising the bus driver. The court held that the MBTA's affirmative act of placing the driver in a public-facing position, despite his known violent tendencies, materially contributed to the harm suffered by Theisz. The court also reaffirmed that § 10 (c) of the MTCA, which provides immunity for intentional torts, does not shield the MBTA from liability for its own negligent supervision and retention of the driver. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Theisz v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, all State troopers, filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth and the heads of the State Police and the State Board of Retirement. They claimed that the defendants' policy of denying the accrual of benefits, such as seniority, length-of-service credit, and vacation and sick time while on leave under the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA), violated the act. Additionally, they argued that the policy discriminated against female employees in violation of other state laws.A Superior Court judge dismissed the portion of the complaint alleging violations of the PFMLA. The judge concluded that the act does not guarantee the accrual of benefits during PFMLA leave. The plaintiffs then sought clarification on the interpretation of the act, and the case was reported to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to itself for review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the PFMLA does not require employers to guarantee the accrual of vacation and sick time during an employee's leave. The court interpreted the plain language of the statute, particularly sections 2(e) and 2(f), and concluded that while employees must be restored to their previous position with the same status and benefits upon returning from leave, the act does not mandate the continued accrual of benefits during the leave period. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the PFMLA claims and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bodge v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The case involves five plaintiffs who own and operate 7-Eleven convenience stores in Massachusetts. They entered into franchise agreements with 7-Eleven, Inc., which provided them with a license to use the 7-Eleven brand and associated business format. In return, the franchisees agreed to operate their stores according to 7-Eleven's standards and pay a franchise fee, which is a percentage of the store's gross profits. The plaintiffs claim they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees under Massachusetts law.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit previously reviewed the case and certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) regarding whether the three-prong test for independent contractor status applies to franchise relationships. The SJC concluded that the test does apply but requires a case-specific examination of whether the individual performs any service for the alleged employer. The First Circuit then certified a second question to the SJC, asking whether the plaintiffs perform any service for 7-Eleven under the Massachusetts independent contractor statute, given their contractual obligations and the franchise fee structure.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the plaintiffs do not perform any service for 7-Eleven within the meaning of the independent contractor statute. The court reasoned that the franchisees operate their stores independently and chose to use the 7-Eleven brand for its market benefits. The court emphasized that the franchisees' compliance with 7-Eleven's standards is necessary to maintain the brand's integrity and does not indicate an employment relationship. Therefore, the court answered the certified question in the negative, concluding that the plaintiffs are not employees of 7-Eleven under the Massachusetts independent contractor statute. View "Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (the union), and the School Committee of Boston (the committee). The union alleged that the committee failed to hire eighteen "cluster" paraprofessional substitutes as required by their collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator sustained the union's grievance in July 2020 and ordered the committee to comply with the hiring requirement. The committee did not seek to vacate or modify the award. Nineteen months later, the union sought judicial confirmation of the arbitration award, which the committee opposed, claiming substantial compliance.In the Superior Court, the union filed a complaint to confirm the arbitration award and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The committee responded with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Superior Court judge granted the committee's motion to dismiss and denied the union's motion, reasoning that there was no statutory right to confirmation when no dispute was alleged.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that under General Laws c. 150C, § 10, the Superior Court is required to confirm an arbitration award upon application by a party unless a timely motion to vacate or modify the award has been made. The court emphasized that the statute's language is clear and mandatory, stating that the Superior Court "shall" confirm the award if no such motion is pending. The court rejected the committee's argument that confirmation should be discretionary and noted that the purpose of § 10 is to enforce arbitration awards.The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Superior Court's order, granting the committee's motion to dismiss and denying the union's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court ordered that the arbitration award be confirmed. View "Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. School Committee of Boston" on Justia Law

This case involves five ballot initiative petitions related to the classification of "app-based drivers" (drivers) as employees of delivery network companies or transportation network companies (collectively, companies). The petitions aim to ensure that drivers are not classified as employees, thereby excluding them from the rights, privileges, and protections that Massachusetts General and Special Laws confer on employees. Three of the five petitions couple this deprivation with "minimum compensation, healthcare stipends, earned paid sick time, and occupational accident insurance." The other two do not.The plaintiffs, a group of registered voters, challenged the Attorney General's certification of the petitions and the fairness and conciseness of the summaries prepared by the Attorney General. They argued that the petitions do not meet the related subjects requirement of the Massachusetts Constitution, that one of the petitions inappropriately asks voters for an exemption from the entirety of Massachusetts law, and that the three long-form versions contain prohibited "sweeteners" that are misleadingly described. They also argued that the petitions are designed to confuse by using dense and technical language.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk found that all five petitions share a common purpose of defining and governing the relationship between drivers and companies, and thus meet the related subjects requirement. The court also found that the Attorney General's summaries of the petitions were fair and concise, as required by the Massachusetts Constitution. The court remanded the case to the county court for entry of a declaration that the Attorney General's certifications and summaries comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Constitution. However, the court retained jurisdiction to revisit its rulings and conclusions if the proponents seek to place more than one petition on the November ballot. View "El Koussa v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the certification of Initiative Petition 23-35, "An Act Giving Transportation Network Drivers the Option to Form a Union and Bargain Collectively" by the Attorney General. The plaintiffs argued that the petition should not have been certified as it does not meet the requirement of containing only related subjects. They contended that the provisions allowing transportation network drivers to organize and collectively bargain with transportation network companies are unrelated to its provisions subjecting the results of any collective bargaining to supervision, review, and approval by the Commonwealth's Secretary of Labor.The case was brought before the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, where the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the petition does not satisfy the related subjects requirement of art. 48, and an order enjoining the Secretary of the Commonwealth from placing the petition on the Statewide election ballot. The plaintiffs argued that the Secretary of Labor's role in the collective bargaining process is not part of the integrated scheme proposed by the petition.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument. The court concluded that the petition seeks to establish a multistep collective bargaining scheme in which the Secretary of Labor's role is an integrated component. Therefore, the subjects of the petition are related for purposes of art. 48. The court affirmed the Attorney General's certification of the petition. The court also noted that the Secretary of Labor's supervisory role is designed to anticipate and address a potential consequence of the collective bargaining process the petition seeks to create, specifically a legal challenge that the collective bargaining process would be preempted by Federal antitrust law. View "Craney v. Attorney General" on Justia Law