FAMILIES FIRST CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE ACT
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS – MA Employment Lawyer speaks with NBC10 Boston reporter Alysha Palumbo about the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, its benefit to working families, its allowances for full or part-time employees, and how businesses will be affected.
Working Mass. Parents May Qualify for Paid Leave During Child’s Remote, Hybrid Learning
For more information about wage violations or equal pay violations, contact our attorneys today.
Read MoreNew Discrimination, Disability Case
The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled than an employee who made an accommodation request for a disability after engaging in serious work-place misconduct had not been discriminated against by her employer upon termination. This case forced the Court to balance the rights and protections Congress has put in place for disabled employees and an employers’ right to discharge disabled and non-disabled employees alike for violating established and neutrally applied rules of conduct.
This decision stems from a case brought by an employee suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). The employee alleged disability discrimination and failure to accommodate on the part of her employer, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The employee engaged in behavior that included throwing and slamming company equipment and directing expletives towards her co-workers. The employer found that this behavior breached its rules of conduct and made the decision to fire the employee. Before the employer was able to act on its decision, the employee informed the employer of her disability, PTSD. In this communication, the employee requested a workplace accommodation, to work from home, to avoid recurrence of the problem behavior. The employer denied this request and fired the employee.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court judge’s decision in favor of the employer, finding where “an accommodation request follows fireable misconduct, it ordinarily should not be viewed as an accommodation proposal at all” and an interactive process may not be required. The Court further found that the employee failed to establish the employer had discriminatory intent related to the employee’s PTSD, as would support her ADA disparate treatment discrimination claim.
This ruling puts employees in a catch 22—alert your employer of your disability, which may put you at risk of future negative treatment, or risk being fired without recourse when your previously unannounced disability manifests and causes complications in the workplace. If you or someone you know needs advice navigating the difficulties associated with working with a disability, the attorneys of MA Employment Lawyers are standing by. You can contact us by calling or by emailing us.
The materials on this website are for informational purposes only. Nothing on this web site is intended to be legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist with the MA Employment Lawyers unless we so agree in writing after personal consultation. The purpose of the information on this website is for advertising and marketing only.
Read MoreSettlement Alert
FMLA Retaliation – MA Employment Lawyers secured a settlement for a client subjected to retaliation by their employer after exercising their rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The FMLA entitles qualifying employees access to twelve (12) weeks of unpaid leave per year. Employees may qualify for FMLA leave if they: (a) work for a public employer or private employer that employed fifty (50) or more employees for at least twenty (20) workweeks during either the current or previous year, (b) have worked at least 1,250 hours for the employer for a minimum of twelve (12) months and (c) work at, or are predominantly assigned work from, a location where at least fifty (50) employees work, or within seventy-five (75) miles of that location. Qualifying employees that exercise their right to FMLA leave, or make a request to do so, are protected from being retaliated against by their employer. Retaliation can include, but is not limited to, a reduction in pay, hours, or responsibility, demotion, termination, or withholding of an earned raise or bonus.
If you or someone you know may have been retaliated gainst after exercising their rights in the workplace, out attorneys are standing by. You can contact us by calling or emailing us.
The materials on this website are for informational purposes only. Nothing on this web site is intended to be legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist with the MA Employment Lawyers unless we so agree in writing after personal consultation. The purpose of the information on this website is for advertising and marketing only.
Read MoreBaking Company Delivery Drivers Entitled To Overtime Pay
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled last week that delivery drivers for a baking company are exempt employees and entitled to overtime pay.
The bakery drivers were not paid overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a work week. Generally carriers are exempt from the federal overtime law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), but there are certain classes of drivers who are entitled to overtime. In this case, the delivery drivers were protected and thus entitled to overtime, because they operated a vehicle weighing 10,000 pounds or less.
If you are a delivery driver and operate a delivery truck weighing 10,000 pounds or less, you may be entitled to unpaid overtime compensation. For a free consultation, please contact the experienced attorneys at MA Employment Lawyers.
Read MorePizza Delivery Drivers May Proceed With Wage Class Action
A Massachusetts federal court judge recently ruled that a group of pizza delivery drivers for a Domino’s pizza franchise may proceed with two of their class action claims (1) withholding service fees and charges that were given and designated as “delivery charges,” and (2) not paying drivers properly for doing work inside stores, such as folding pizza boxes.
This pizza franchise owner was advertising “delivery charges” yet withholding almost half those charges from the delivery drivers. In addition, the employer was asking delivery drivers to perform non-delivery work that co-workers, who do receive a minimum wage, perform – such as folding pizza boxes. The drivers may now proceed as a group to challenge the pizza franchise’s practice of charging customers for the delivery without remitting that entire charge to drivers and not paying minimum wage for non-tipped inside work.
If you are a food service delivery driver and believe your employer is not paying you properly for delivery charges or inside work, please contact the experienced attorneys of MA Employment Lawyers, for a free consultation.
Read MoreObesity a Disease
MLL has extensive experience representing employees with disabilities who have been discriminated against because of those disabilities. In doing so, MLL has learned that the law generally does not recognize obesity as a protected disability. All that may soon change, in large part due to the American Medical Association’s decision, released in June 2013, that obesity is to be considered a disease. If courts pick up on this trend, employees who suffer from a workplace filled with jokes about their weight may be able to successfully sue under State and Federal laws protecting disabled individuals. MLL monitors updates like this on a day-to-day basis. Doing so allows MLL to effectively represent their clients and achieve maximize results. For more information, contact the experienced attorneys of MA Employment Lawyers today. (Tags: Harassment, Discrimination)
Read MoreWeakening the Wage Act to Help Employees:
On August 12, 2013, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court weakened the Wage Act by holding that it does displace common-law claims for unpaid wages. In doing so, the SJC rejected a favorite argument of employers that prevented employees from recovering lost wages earned over three years ago. MLL has already begun to implement this important case into its arsenal and has successfully used it to argue for damages that were previously lost to its employee clients. With MLL as your lawyers, you will have a team that knows the law and knows how to use it. For more information, contact the trusted legal team of MA Employment Lawyers today. (Tags: Wage Violations)
Read MoreYour Boss Said What?
Your co-workers’ and supervisors’ comments can provide the most powerful evidence in support of your discrimination claim. Just recently, an employer was found to have engaged in impermissible age discrimination in part because a supervisor described a termination as providing an opportunity to “bring the next generation in” and that the company had a plan to “bring in younger people” to take the place of the “older people” when they leave. These types of comments alone can support a discrimination claim. If you’ve suffered comments like these, call us today for a free consolation. For more information, contact the trusted legal team of MA Employment Lawyers today. (Tags: Harassment, Discrimination)
Read MoreMassachusetts Wage Act Strengthened
Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court strengthen the Wage Act’s teeth by holding that manages of LLCs can be personally liable for violations of the Wage Act committed by the LLC. MLL is well aware of how to turn up the heat on wage claims and has begun to utilize this important case to make employers pay for their mistakes. In doing so, MLL is going after not only the employer who made the mistake, but the individual supervisor who made the mistaken decision. For more information, contact the skilled legal team of MA Employment Lawyers today.
Read MoreAssociational Discrimination Recognized in Massachusetts
Oftentimes employers discriminate against employees because of the company they keep. On July 19, 2013 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court emphatically held that employers who discriminate against their employees because those employees have a relationship with someone who is disabled have violated Massachusetts law. For now, this case appears to be limited to the immediate family context (e.g., husband-wife relationships) but will likely be expanded further as time goes by. MLL sees this most frequently when employers terminate an employee because that employee’s loved one suffers from an expensive or time-consuming disability. MLL fought for these types of employees long before this case appeared, but will do so now knowing that it has this recent case in its arsenal. For more information, contact the skilled legal team of MA Employment Lawyers today. (Tags: Discrimination)
Read More