The Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (the “Act”) goes into effect on April 1, 2018 and has immediate implications for all Massachusetts employers who employ six or more employees. Broadly speaking, the Act amends the current statute prohibiting discrimination in employment, G.L. c. 151B, §4, and prohibits discrimination on the
On March 1, 2018, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office issued its formal Guidance on the amendments to the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA) taking effect on July 1, 2018. These amendments represent a significant change in the law, and employers will want to take prompt steps to determine if their pay practices
We reported previously about the unprecedented changes to the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act that become effective on July 1, 2018. The new law provides more clarity regarding what constitutes unlawful wage discrimination and adds additional protections to promote greater fairness and equity in the workplace.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court has deemed newspaper delivery drivers of a Braintree distributor to be employees, not independent contractors, under state law.
Employees need to do more than just whistle at work: Supreme Court requires whistleblowers to report to SEC to be protected by Dodd-Frank
On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowed the universe of whistleblowers who are protected by the powerful anti-retaliation provisions within the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank).
Massachusetts Bill Aims to Bar Waivers of Rights Related to Harassment, Discrimination, and Wage and Hour Claims in Employment Contracts
Waivers of rights arising from harassment and discrimination claims and disputes over wages and benefits may not be enforceable in Massachusetts for much longer.
In the last days of 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) gave board members and investors of corporations and LLCs some cause for celebration. In Segal v. Genitrix, LLC, SJC-12291 (Mass. Dec. 28, 2017), the Court held that board members and investors cannot be held personally liable for their
The First Circuit has recognized for the first time that sexual orientation can be the “plus” in a “sex-plus” discrimination case. The facts upon which a Rhode Island federal district court jury (and ultimately the First Circuit) found gender discrimination premised on the “sex-plus” theory are vile. The plaintiff, a