Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court, claiming that defendants wrongfully subjected them to a mandatory furlough plan that was ordered by the Governor. A superior Court judge allowed defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed and the court transferred the case on its own motion. Because the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to offer a valid statutory basis to challenge the implementation of the furlough plan, the court affirmed the judgment.

This case arose when plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, entered into an executive employment contract with defendant. A forum selection clause dictated that all disputes arising out of the contract or the employment relationship were to be resolved in courts situated in Erie County, New York, defendant's principal place of business. The court concluded that a forum selection clause operated as a special contract only when three conditions were met: the employer's claim was covered by the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, sections 148, 150; the court of the forum state, applying its choice-of-law principles, would choose a law other than that of Massachusetts to govern the dispute; and application of the foreign law would deprive the employee of a substantive right guaranteed by the Wage Act. Under modern choice-of-law doctrines, these conditions rarely coincided. On the facts alleged in the case, a New York court, applying New York's choice-of-law doctrine, would certainly apply the Wage Act to this dispute. Therefore, the court held that because enforcement of the forum selection clause would not deprive plaintiff of the protections of the Wage Act, dismissal of the action was affirmed.

An insurer appealed from a decision related to an employee's injury in a metal rolling machine accident. The court concluded that the board was not arbitrary or capricious in deciding that there was insufficient evidence to find that the employee was entitled under G.L.c. 152, section 51 to compensation based on an amount greater than his average weekly wage. But the court concluded that the board erred in finding that the employee's compensation should be based on the average weekly wage he earned when injured in 1980 rather than the out-of-state average weekly wage he earned when that injury recurred in 2003. The court also affirmed the board's decision to vacate the denial of recoupment for the insurer's overpayment of temporary total disability benefits between 1985 and 1988, but noted that, should the insurer decide to renew its claim for recoupment in a separate complaint filed with the department, its claim could prevail only if recoupment was equitable in the circumstances.

In this consolidated appeal, the court construed the payment obligations of municipalities participating in G.L.c. 41, section 108L, (Quinn Bill), a local statute establishing a career incentive pay program for police officers. The underlying case arose when the Commonwealth, facing budgetary constraints, substantially cut reimbursements. Plaintiffs subsequently contended that clauses in the collective bargaining agreements (CBA) impermissibly conflict with the statute, which they viewed as requiring the city to pay 100% of benefits irrespective of reimbursement. The court held that the CBAs did not conflict with the statute and were valid. Section 108L required only that municipalities pay one-half the amounts specified in the payment provision, plus any amount actually received from the Commonwealth. Municipalities could agree to pay more, but the statute did not require it. Therefore, the cases were remanded to the county court, where the single justice was directed to issue a declaration stating that, with respect to section 108L, the CBAs between the city and the various police unions were valid and enforceable.

A United States District Court judge for the District of Massachusetts ruled in this case that defendant misclassified as independent contractors those plaintiffs who were Massachusetts residents. The judge certified to this court questions related to calculation of damages for one such plaintiff. The certified questions related to whether, under Massachusetts law, an employer could use a system of customer accounts receivable financing to pay its employee at the time the customer paid the employer for the employee's work rather than when the work was performed; and whether, under the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, section 148, 150, an employer and an employee could agree that the employee would pay the cost of workers' compensation and other work-related insurance coverage. The court held that the accounts receivable financing system at issue improperly deferred payment of the employee's earned wages, and that an employer could not deduct the insurance costs from an employee's earned wages. In response to the judge's invitation to provide additional guidance, the court also addressed the question whether defendant could deduct "franchise fees" from such wages, and concluded that the Wage Act forbade the deductions.

This case arose when plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, claiming that his failure to pay her a referral fee was a breach of contract and violated the Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, sections 148, 150. At issue was whether a 2008 amendment to the enforcement section of the Wage Act, providing for a mandatory award of treble damages to a prevailing employee, should be applied in an action brought by an employee against her employer for violation of the Wage Act before the amendment's effective date. The court held that the amendment should be read to apply only prospectively, to claims arising on or after the amendment's effective date of July 12, 2008. Therefore, because the Superior Court judge applied the amendment retrospectively, the court remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a workers' compensation claimant, brought suit against defendant regarding the company's conduct in referring his claim to the insurance fraud bureau (IFB), communicating with fraud investigators and prosecutors regarding his activity and claim, and using criminal processes to gain leverage in dealings with him. At issue was whether summary judgment in favor of defendant was properly denied. The court held that defendant enjoyed qualified immunity regarding its reporting of potentially fraudulent activity but that summary judgment was inappropriate because all of plaintiff's claims rely, at least in part, on conduct falling outside the scope of the immunity. The court also held that portions of plaintiff's claims could be barred by workers' compensation exclusivity under G.L.c. 152, but that not one of plaintiff's counts was barred entirely such that the Superior Court would be without subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of the Superior Court denying summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Richard S. Higgins filed a workers' compensation claim with the Department of Industrial Accidents ("department") after he injured his back while working for the school department of Maynard. At issue was whether employees, who were subject to examinations conducted pursuant to G.L.c. 152, section 45, were entitled to discovery and production of reports made in connection with such examinations. The court held that, in the context of the workers' compensation scheme, a report of a physician's examination of an employee procured by the employer or insurer under section 45, that was related to the employee's work-related injury, could be used by the employee to cross-examine the impartial physician, regardless of whether such a report had been admitted in evidence at a hearing or otherwise placed at issue by the employer or insurer.

This action arose when claimant, a former customer service representative for Verizon New England, Inc. ("Verizon"), was denied unemployment benefits. At issue was whether the board of review of the division of unemployed assistance ("board") erred because Verizon took the "last step" in the termination process that entitled claimant to unemployment benefits. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, which affirmed the decision of the board, to deny claimant benefits because the court agreed with the board's conclusion that the claimant did not meet her burden of showing that her decision to leave was involuntary, where she was not compelled to apply for the termination, did not believe her job was in jeopardy, and left in part for personal reasons.