Court Clarifies Punitive Damages Guidelines

October 19, 2009 By

In a ruling that may be useful to Massachusetts employers, the Supreme Judicial Court in October made clear that puntive damages can only be awarded to discrimination plaintiffs when their employer’s conduct is “outrageous or egregious.” Punitive damages are, after all, available only to punish bad actors, not to permit windfall awards to discrimination victims who are generally entitled only to recover what they lost in wages and what they suffered from proven emotional injuries.

Apparently recognizing the subjective natures of the terms “outrageous” and “egregious” — who, after all can define either with more than a modicum of confidence — the court did what it often does. It created a list of factors that should be considered by judges and juries when evaluating whether to issue punitive damage awards. As always, the list is intended as a guideline only. Other factors that are relevant in particular cases can always be considered. The five punitive damages factors created by the SJC are: [Read more...]

Filed Under: Discrimination, Employee - Employment Law, Employer - Employment Law, Massachusetts Employment Law, Wrongful Termination Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Court Rulings Pose Risks For Employers

September 17, 2009 By

Massachusetts courts have been busy in the employment arena lately. In Summer 2009, they issued at least three substantive decisions that may force employers to take quick action on policy manuals, arbitration agreements and wage payment policies.

Though none of the decisions change the law outright, each is employee friendly and stretches employer duties to new lengths. The cases make it easer for workers to use employment manuals as binding contracts, harder for employers to force arbitration in discrimination cases, and more likely that employees will win big damage awards plus legal fees in disputed wage cases.

Employment Manuals In a June 2009 opinion, the district court’s appellate decision affirmed a $42,000 jury verdict for a worker who claimed his company’s employment manual was breached when he was fired. The court relied heavily on the worker’s testimony that he regarded the manual as binding and honored a non-compete clause contained within it. The court also cited to the employer’s request that the employee acknowledge receiving it. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Discrimination, Employer - Employment Law, Massachusetts Employment Law, Massachusetts Wage Act, Wages and Commissions, Wrongful Termination Tagged With: , , , , , ,

SJC Makes Arbitration of Discrimination Lawsuits Tougher

August 14, 2009 By

In a surprising decision, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled in July that not all arbitration agreements are created equally and, consequently, only some of them are enforceable by employers. When it comes to suits under the state’s anti-discrimination law (Chapter 151B), the language in a workplace arbitration clause must be clear and unequivocal. Unless it demonstrates that an employee specifically bargained away the right to sue at the Commission Against Discrimination or in state court, the worker’s lawsuit for sexual harassment, age or race bias, failure to reasonably accommodate, or other discrimination issues may escape arbitration. That means employers will face the far more difficult and expensive task of defending themselves in front of a jury or at the MCAD or its federal counterpart, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The message for employers is clear: review any and all arbitration agreements you entered with your employees and, if you still believe arbitration of discrimination claims is in the company’s best interest, make sure Chapter 151B is specifically referenced. For many employers, [Read more...]

Filed Under: Discrimination, Employee - Employment Law, Employer - Employment Law, Massachusetts Employment Law, Wrongful Termination Tagged With: , , , , , ,
Newer Posts »