Preventing Identity Theft — The New Employer Duty

A tough new data protection law is on the books and will soon require virtually all Massachusetts businesses to implement comprehensive policies to protect against identity theft. The statute applies so broadly that employers of every size and shape will be subject to it. All must create, implement, monitor and regularly update internal data protection procedures and encrypt information that is either transmitted via the internet or stored on portable devices.

Though the data security law became effective in October 2007, enforcement has been delayed until March 1, 2010 to permit Massachusetts companies time to become compliant. Doing so is a daunting task, since the statute’s broad reach captures virtually every every piece of what’s called “personal information.” That phrase refers to a combination of an individual’s name and either a social security number, driver’s license number, or financial account/credit card number or password. Employers must be certain to protect against both external data thefts and internal breaches. Not surprisingly, the latter sort is far more common. [Read more...]

Court Clarifies Punitive Damages Guidelines

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...]

Court Rulings Pose Risks For Employers

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...]

Massachusetts Employment Law: How To Let Your Workers Go

One thing Massachusetts employers must understand is that you are free to do as you see fit with your employees. You can let them go for any reason, at any time, with or without cause. An employer does not need to be concerned about lawsuits as long as they have covered these three basic areas:

  1. Be sure your employees do not have contracts.
  2. Make sure you don’t discriminate against your employees. You need to look at how a worker was treated and whether or not he or she has made prior claims of discrimination. If they have made claimes, be careful,  retaliation is a viable cause for action.
  3. Pay them all wages they have earned and all money owed to them immediately.

For more discussion about “How To Let Your Workers Go“, watch my video:

If you have questions about an employee or any issue regarding Massachusetts employment law, consult an qualified Massachusetts employment lawyer before you take action.

Boston employment lawyer, Attorney Jack Merrill provides legal services to employees and employers throughout the Boston metro and Worcester County region including Ashland, Dedham, Framingham, Franklin, Hopkinton, Maynard, Marlborough, Milford, Natick, Needham, Newton, Shrewsbury, Sudbury, Waltham, and Worcester, Massachusetts.

COBRA Law Benefits Expanded

It’s commonly known as the “Stimulus Bill,” and is officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This is the huge federal bill passed in February at the urging of President Barack Obama. While the overall idea was to stimulate the American economy, included in the bill’s details are unexpected benefits like the one that laid off employees will enjoy under COBRA. As most know, this federal law guarantees continued health care coverage for workers who lose their jobs, regardless of the reason. Under the Stimulus Bill, employers now must cover 65% of the COBRA premium for employees fired – or laid off, if that term is preferred, the distinction being meaningless in this context – between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. This percentage must be paid for up to nine months, but applies only to periods of time between [Read more...]

Massachusetts Attacks Independent Contractors

In 2004, Massachusetts changed its independent contractor law in a rather radical way. The amendment essentially banned the use of independent contractors in the Commonwealth, regardless whether workers and employers agreed that the arrangement made good business sense. The new law so narrowly defined who could and couldn’t be an independent contractor that most observers figured it represented a case of legislative over-drafting. How, after all, could the state have intended such a radical result when important segments of the business community had for so many years operated openly and productively under the independent contractor model?

Five years later, the anti-contractor law not only is unchanged but is being vigorously enforced under the leadership of Governor Deval Patrick. In 2008, he formed a joint task force to target violators of the independent contractor statute, calling them purveyors of an “underground economy” that underpays employees, reduces state tax revenues, and undermines safety laws. The task force’s mission statement takes an aggressive stand against what’s termed improper employee classification, which the Governor believes affects one in every seven Massachusetts workers. In its one year of existence, the task force has already launched hundreds of coordinated investigations and leveled numerous fines against Massachusetts employers. An anonymous tip line makes starting an [Read more...]

Recovery Act Requires Massachusetts Employers To Pay Cobra Costs

Most people probably wouldn’t associate a $700 billion-plus economic recovery bill with the plight of former employees who need to make hefty health insurance payments. Then again, most people don’t think like members of the U.S. Congress. Among the many lesser publicized aspects of the latest mega-bill, passed in February 2009, is a requirement that employers who fire employees between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 pay 65% of their former workers’ health care costs under COBRA for a period of up to nine months.

The benefits payments don’t kick in until February 17, 2009, but workers let go before that date can still enjoy coverage. Under the new law, employers must make the payments first and recoup them through tax credits at year end. COBRA is the federal law that provides for continued health care coverage to employees who lose their jobs, regardless of the reason for separation. Under the 2009 bill, the 65% benefit also applies [Read more...]