Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

A group of Massachusetts registered voters challenged the Attorney General's certification of Initiative Petition 23-12, which proposed "a Law Requiring the Full Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers with Tips on Top." The plaintiffs argued that the petition violated the requirement under art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution that initiative petitions contain only related or mutually dependent subjects. The petition proposed two changes: first, it would require employers to pay the full minimum wage to tipped employees, and second, it would permit tip pooling among both tipped and non-tipped employees.The plaintiffs commenced this action in the county court, claiming that the Attorney General's certification of the petition was in error because the petition did not contain only related or mutually dependent subjects. The single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk affirmed the Attorney General's certification of the petition as in proper form to be submitted to voters. The court concluded that the petition, which would require that employers pay the full minimum wage to tipped employees and would permit tip pooling among both tipped and non-tipped employees, forms a "unified statement of public policy on which the voters can fairly vote 'yes' or 'no.'" The court found that the two provisions of the petition were closely related and shared a well-defined common purpose related to ending the existing compensation system common to tipped industries. View "Clark v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the lower court's summary judgment ruling against Jordan's Furniture, Inc. The company had implemented a commissions-based compensation scheme for its sales employees, which the plaintiff class argued failed to comply with the overtime and Sunday pay statutes as outlined in a previous case, Sullivan v. Sleepy's LLC. The court agreed, finding that Jordan's failed to provide separate and additional payments for overtime and Sundays, thereby violating the statutes. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Sunday pay statute can be enforced under the Wage Act's private right of action, as Sunday pay constitutes "wages earned" under the Wage Act. The court, however, vacated the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff class and remanded the case to the lower court for recalculation of the award of attorney's fees, due to the lower court's reliance on common fund case law and categorical exclusion of time spent on settlement negotiations and mediation from the lodestar calculation. View "Sutton v. Jordan's Furniture, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc., adopted a policy requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The defendant, Shanika Jefferson, a home health aide employed by Fallon, sought a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement. Her request was denied, and her employment was terminated. Jefferson then applied for and was approved for unemployment benefits from the Department of Unemployment Assistance. However, Fallon contended that Jefferson was ineligible for the benefits and sought review of the decision. The board of review of the department, as well as a District Court judge, affirmed the decision.Fallon argued that Jefferson was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits as per § 25 (e) (2) of General Laws c. 151A because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine in knowing violation of Fallon's reasonable policy and in wilful disregard of Fallon's interest in keeping its vulnerable patient population healthy. However, the Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with Fallon's contention. The court held that Jefferson did not engage in "deliberate misconduct", but rather made a good faith effort to comply with Fallon's policy by applying for a religious exemption. The court also found that Fallon failed to demonstrate that Jefferson should be disqualified on the basis of a "knowing violation" of that policy. The court considered the unique circumstances of the case, including Jefferson's sincere religious beliefs, which did not present her with a meaningful choice regarding vaccination. Therefore, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, allowing Jefferson to receive unemployment benefits. View "Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc. v. Acting Director of the Department of Unemployment Assistance" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court judge granting summary judgment in favor of BSC Companies, Inc., BSC Group, Inc., and the companies' president (collectively, BSC) in this action brought by BSC's former employees alleging claims under the Prevailing Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 26-27H, holding that the contracts at issue were not governed by the Act, and BSC was not required to pay its employees a prevailing wage pursuant to the contracts.At issue were two professional engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to BSC. The contracts were not competitively bid and were not awarded to the lowest bidder, unlike contracts for public works construction projects governed by the Act. Further, the contracts did not specify that BSC's employees would be paid at least a prevailing wage determined by the Department of Labor Standards. The superior court judge granted summary judgment to BSC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to a prevailing wage for their work under the professional services contracts. View "Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's action alleging that defendant Massachusetts Coastal Railroad LLC (MCR) paid him less than the prevailing wage on State public works projects, holding that the trial court did not err.In their motion to dismiss, MCR and its managing officer (together, Defendants), argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, 49 U.S.C. 10501 preempted the Prevailing Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 26-27H, and therefore, the Commonwealth was precluded from enforcing the Act. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendants failed to show that the Prevailing Wage Act was preempted; and (2) Plaintiff's allegations plausibly suggested a right to relief under the Act. View "Marsh v. Mass. Coastal Railroad LLC" on Justia Law