<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Working the Law: News and Views on Employment Issues&#187; Massachusetts Employment Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.framinghamlegal.com/category/massachusetts-employment-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com</link>
	<description>By Massachusetts Employment Lawyer Jack Merrill</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:13:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Massachusetts to Grant Work Leave Rights to Domestic Violence Victims?</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2012/01/massachusetts-to-grant-work-leave-rights-to-domestic-violence-victims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2012/01/massachusetts-to-grant-work-leave-rights-to-domestic-violence-victims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By an overwhelming vote of 34-0, the Massachusetts State Senate voted on January 12 to grant victims of domestic violence up to 15 days of annual leave. The bill is not yet law as it must be approved by the state&#8217;s house of representatives and then signed by Governor Deval Patrick. Given the lack of dissent in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2012/01/massachusetts-to-grant-work-leave-rights-to-domestic-violence-victims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wage Act&#8217;s Triple Damages Provision is Not Retroactive</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/10/wage-acts-triple-damages-provision-is-not-retroactive/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/10/wage-acts-triple-damages-provision-is-not-retroactive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:01:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Wage Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wages and Commissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Massachusetts&#8217; highest court has ruled that the 2008 amendment to the state&#8217;s Wage Act is not retroactive. As a result, claims involving work that straddles the July 2008 effective date of the rewritten law will be governed by two different standards. For damages related to work that occurred prior to July 2008, a plaintiff employee [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/10/wage-acts-triple-damages-provision-is-not-retroactive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MCAD Exempts Itself from from Bankruptcy Stay Rule</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/09/mcad-exempts-itself-from-from-bankruptcy-stay-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/09/mcad-exempts-itself-from-from-bankruptcy-stay-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision many employment lawyers may find surprising, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination refused in June to stay proceedings in an age and sex bias case despite the employer&#8217;s filing of a bankruptcy petition. The MCAD instead proceeded to hearing and entered a judgment of nearly $250,000 for the employee, concluding that the bankrupt respondent &#8220;has chosen to default rather than [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/09/mcad-exempts-itself-from-from-bankruptcy-stay-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Enforcing Noncompetion Agreements against Independent Contractors may be Problematic for Employers</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/08/enforcing-noncompetion-agreements-against-independent-contractors-may-be-problematic-for-employers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/08/enforcing-noncompetion-agreements-against-independent-contractors-may-be-problematic-for-employers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independent Contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-competition Agreements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=338</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As if employers don&#8217;t have enough to worry about when they try to enforce noncompetition agrreements against their former employers, some are discovering that things get even trickier when they look to do so against workers who were arguably misclassified as independent contractors. In addition to the normal hurdles &#8212; including proving that a valid contract [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/08/enforcing-noncompetion-agreements-against-independent-contractors-may-be-problematic-for-employers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Shocks Employment Bar with Narrow Wage Act Ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/07/judge-shocks-employment-bar-with-narrow-wage-act-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/07/judge-shocks-employment-bar-with-narrow-wage-act-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 20:18:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Wage Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wages and Commissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision that can be described as nothing less than shocking to many in the employment law arena, a superior court judge has held that the Massachusetts Wage Act does not apply to limited liability companies (LLC) in the same way it covers corporations. Applying a narrow view of the law&#8217;s specific language and rejecting the implications [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/07/judge-shocks-employment-bar-with-narrow-wage-act-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Workers&#8217; Comp Insurance No Bar to Suit by Independent Contractors Hurt on the Job</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/06/workers-comp-insurance-no-bar-to-suit-by-independent-contractors-hurt-on-the-job/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/06/workers-comp-insurance-no-bar-to-suit-by-independent-contractors-hurt-on-the-job/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independent Contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Wage Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Judicial Court has added yet another reason for employers to properly classify their workers &#8212; the threat of a direct lawsuit by non-employees injured on the job, even if those workers first collect hefty workers&#8217; compensation payouts. In a May 23, 2011 decision, the Court held that the state law barring injured employees from suing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/06/workers-comp-insurance-no-bar-to-suit-by-independent-contractors-hurt-on-the-job/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employers Liable for Retaliation Against Former Employees</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/05/employers-liable-for-retaliation-against-former-employees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/05/employers-liable-for-retaliation-against-former-employees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 17:32:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retaliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s always been clear that taking negative action against an employee because he/she filed a discrmination complaint or supported another employee who did so is illegal under Massachusetts law. Now, the state&#8217;s highest court has made clear that employees are protected from retaliation even when the supposed misconduct occurs years after employment ends. The May 2011 decsion [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/05/employers-liable-for-retaliation-against-former-employees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sometimes, It Takes Only A Word</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/03/sometimes-it-takes-only-a-word/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/03/sometimes-it-takes-only-a-word/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are a few words in the English language that most of us won&#8217;t utter in any venue, let alone at work. They are so highly charged and potentially offensive that any use of them, in almost any context, utterly fails any version of risk/reward analysis. But not everyone, of course, understands this rather obvious point, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/03/sometimes-it-takes-only-a-word/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WAGE ACT&#8217;S REACH EXPANDED BY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/02/wage-acts-reach-expanded-by-superior-court-judge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/02/wage-acts-reach-expanded-by-superior-court-judge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Wage Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wages and Commissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a surprising decision early this month, a superior court judge entered an expansive reading of the Massachusetts Wage Act that brings severance pay into the law&#8217;s ambit. If the thinking of Justice Dennis Curran is adopted by other judges or affirmed by the state&#8217;s appeals courts, it will leave employers who don&#8217;t make severance [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/02/wage-acts-reach-expanded-by-superior-court-judge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>White-on-White Race Harassment Declared Illegal</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/01/white-on-white-race-harassment-declared-illegal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/01/white-on-white-race-harassment-declared-illegal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an unusual case before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, harassment by one white male employee of another has been found to violate state law. The Commission concluded that the harassment, which focused on the victim&#8217;s interracial relationship and included the use of terms such as &#8220;porch monkey lover&#8221; and others, targeted the victim because [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/01/white-on-white-race-harassment-declared-illegal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

