Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs were individuals who lived in New York and worked there as couriers for Defendant, a corporation headquartered in Massachusetts. Plaintiffs brought this action in a Massachusetts court to enforce certain Massachusetts independent contractor, wage, and overtime pay statutes. The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding (1) the Massachusetts independent contractor statute does not apply to non-Massachusetts residents working outside Massachusetts, and (2) as independent contractors, Plaintiffs failed to state claims under the Massachusetts wage statutes. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, holding that, insofar as the written contract between the parties contained an enforceable clause requiring both that actions be brought in Massachusetts and requiring that the contract and all rights and obligations of the parties be determined under Massachusetts law, and where application of Massachusetts law is not contrary to a fundamental policy of the jurisdiction where the individuals live and work, it was error to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. View "Taylor v. E. Connection Operating, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by the City in 1983 and was discharged from his employment in 2007. At the time of his departure, Plaintiff had accrued fifty days of unused vacation time. Plaintiff was not paid for those vacation days on the day of his termination. Plaintiff filed an action alleging that the City violated the Wage Act when it failed to pay him for his accrued vacation days on the day he was terminated. The superior court dismissed Plaintiff's claim, finding that although the manner of the City's payments to Plaintiff violated the express language of the Wage Act, the City nevertheless compensation Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City could not cast its payments to Plaintiff as vacation pay after the fact and that Plaintiff was entitled to recover his vacation pay in addition to costs and attorney's fees. View "Dixon v. City of Malden" on Justia Law

When Plaintiff became the subject of a federal indictment, the school department (Defendant) suspended her without pay from her position as a school adjustment counselor. Ultimately, the indictment was dismissed. Plaintiff sought reinstatement to her position, but Defendant terminated her employment. Plaintiff filed a grievance challenging the termination, and an arbitrator ordered that she be reinstated. Plaintiff then filed an action seeking confirmation of the arbitration award and back pay for the period of her suspension an the period between her termination and reinstatement. The superior court affirmed the arbitration award but granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant with respect to Plaintiff's back pay claims. The appeals court affirmed the denial of back pay with respect to the period between Plaintiff's termination and reinstatement but reversed with respect to the period of her suspension. The Supreme Court affirmed. Remanded. View "Serrazina v. Springfield Pub. Schs." on Justia Law

This case involved an employment dispute between Defendant, a home heating oil company, and Plaintiffs, two former delivery truck drivers. Plaintiffs argued that they were owed compensation based on their classification as employees, rather than as independent contractors, under the Wage Act. Defendant responded (1) Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) alternatively, a general release contained in the parties' contract termination agreements nevertheless defeated the Wage Act claims. The superior court stayed the proceedings and reported the statute of limitations and general release issues to the appeals court. The Supreme Court transferred the case on its own motion and held (1) Plaintiffs were entitled to recover for damages that occurred within the three-year period prior to filing the complaint; (2) the general releases contained in the contract carrier termination agreements that did not explicitly include the release of Wage Act claims failed to waive those claims; and (3) as a result, Plaintiffs remained entitled to recover for their damages accruing within the three-year period prior to filing the lawsuit. View "Crocker v.Townsend Oil Co." on Justia Law

The named Plaintiffs, African-American and Hispanic police officers, brought suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants, the Commonwealth and the division of human resources, alleging that the division engaged in racial discrimination through the creation and administration of an examination for candidates seeking promotion to the position of police sergeant. A superior court judge granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Commonwealth had not waived its sovereign immunity from suit and, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs had failed to state any claim on which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court concluded (1) Plaintiffs' claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4(4A) should not have been dismissed because it alleged adequately that Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs' right to be free of racial discrimination in opportunities for promotion; but (2) the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed. View "Lopez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought employment as a police officer with the Boston police department. On three occasions, the department extended conditional offers of appointment to Plaintiff, each of which was contingent upon her successful completion of a psychological screening process. On each occasion, department psychiatrists found Plaintiff psychologically unqualified for the job and bypassed her for appointment as a police officer. The civil service commission concluded that the department failed to meet its burden of establishing a reasonable justification for bypassing Plaintiff and ordered that her name be restored to the department's list of individuals certified for appointment. The superior court vacated the commission's order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the superior court correctly found that the commission erred in the manner in which it considered expert testimony from another proceeding; but (2) because the commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence independent of this extraneous evidence, the error did not prejudice the department. View "Boston Police Dep't v. Kavaleski" on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on Plaintiff's application for direct appellate review of a decision of the superior court affirming a decision of the contributory retirement appeal board. The case required the Court to decide whether the $200 fixed annual compensation threshold set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 3(2)(d) applies to elected officials who are otherwise eligible to become members of the contributory retirement system for public employees and whether health insurance contributions and professional association dues paid on behalf of such an official are to be considered as fixed annual compensation for the purposes of this subsection. The Court affirmed the superior court, holding (1) the $200 threshold applies to "any person," including an elected official, otherwise eligible for membership under chapter 32; and (2) the value of health insurance contributions and association dues does not qualify as fixed annual compensation. View "Rotondi v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd." on Justia Law

Petitioners, attorneys who were the subject of disciplinary proceedings, challenged the validity of two aspects of the Commonwealth's workers' compensation, claiming (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, 7C, which authorizes the senior judge of the department of industrial accidents to suspend the right of an attorney to "practice or appear before the department," violated the separation of powers explicitly provided for under article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and (2) 452 Mass Code Regs. 1.19(3), which precludes recovery of an employee's costs and attorney's fees if the employee does not accept an insurer's offer to pay the full amount of the compensation claim, conflicted with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15, 13A(5), which governs the award of attorney's fees and expenses where a claim proceeds to the hearing stage. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) chapter 152, section 7C is invalid as a violation of article 30 insofar as it authorizes the senior judge of the department to suspend attorneys from appearing before the department; and (2) section 1.19(3) is a valid interpretation of chapter 152, section 13A. Remanded. View "Ellis v. Dep't of Indus. Accidents" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was (1) whether a superior court judge erred in ordering the dismissal of an age discrimination complaint filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for lack of subject matter jurisdiction before a final decision had been reached by the commission, and (2) whether the ministerial exception required by the First Amendment prohibits a court or administrative agency from applying Massachusetts' antidiscrimination laws to the decision of a Jewish temple not to rehire a teacher in its Sunday and after-school religious school. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding (1) the judge erred in deciding whether the ministerial exception barred the discrimination claim before the commission had entered a final decision on the claim; but (2) the dismissal of the complaint was proper because the ministerial exception barred the teacher's claim of discrimination. View "Temple Emanuel of Newton v. Mass. Comm'n Against Discrimination" on Justia Law

Ernest Murphy was employed by the Commonwealth as a superior court judge for eight years. Following the publication of libelous articles about Murphy's performance of his judicial duties, and his subsequent receipt of hate mail and death threats, Murphy was diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder and was unable to continue performing the essential duties of his job. The state board of retirement rejected his application for accidental disability retirement benefits pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws 32, 7, and this denial was upheld by the contributory retirement appeal board (CRAB). At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Murphy was entitled to receive accidental disability retirement benefits on the grounds that he was permanently disabled from performing the essential duties of his job by reason of a personal injury sustained as a result of, and while in the performance of, his duties. The Court affirmed, holding that Murphy did not sustain his disabling injuries while in the performance of his judicial duties, as (1) Murphy was not engaged in judicial work during the time he opened and read the death threat; and (2) the act of opening and reading his mail was, in itself, not a judicial duty. View "Murphy v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd." on Justia Law