Boston Lawyer Blog

In Recent Decisions the SJC and MCAD Highlight the Broad Protections of Anti-Retaliation Law

Published on: May 27, 2025 | by Naomi Shatz

Last week, the SJC decided City of Newton v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, a case considering what an employee must show to make out a prima facie case of retaliation under the Massachusetts public employee collective bargaining law. The week before, the MCAD decided MCAD and Nom v. Acton Auto Body Inc. et al., also assessing what evidence an employee claiming retaliation must show to make out a prima facie case.

City of Newton was brought on behalf of a Newton police sergeant who also served in leadership roles in his union. In those roles, he repeatedly came into conflict with the police chief as he asserted employees’ rights under their union contract. Two years after becoming the union’s president, the police chief involuntarily transferred the sergeant from a specialty assignment in the Traffic Bureau to the Patrol Bureau. In the Traffic Bureau the sergeant had worked a regular daytime schedule with weekends off; in the Patrol Bureau he had to work nights on a rotating schedule. The transfer came with an 8% pay increase for working nights, which the sergeant said was less important to him than the regular schedule he had before the transfer.

The union filed a charge with the Department of Labor, and eventually the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) decided that the transfer was an adverse action, and that the City had not met its burden to show that the reason for the transfer was not retaliatory. The City appealed, and the Appeals Court decided that because the sergeant received the pay increase his CBA required, the transfer was not an adverse action.

Proposed legislation would automatically seal eligible criminal records in Massachusetts

Published on: March 21, 2025 | by Niamh Gibbons

A group of Massachusetts lawmakers has introduced a bill this year that would require automatic sealing of many criminal records after specified waiting periods have passed from the end of the defendant’s sentence. The waiting periods have been part of the Commonwealth’s sealing laws for many years and, as we have previously written, were last amended in 2018, when they were reduced to seven years for a felony record and three years for a misdemeanor or delinquency record, provided the defendant has no subsequent convictions (sex offenses cannot be sealed for fifteen years or while the defendant remains required to register as a sex offender). But although the 2018 reforms made sealing more accessible, one estimate puts the number of applications for sealing at only ten percent of the total number of eligible defendants. The new legislation aims to dramatically increase the number of sealed records by eliminating the current petitioning process and automatically sealing records after the waiting period.

Sealing a criminal record can be an important step in allowing former criminal defendants to access to jobs, housing, and other opportunities that are not available to people with a criminal record. After a record is sealed, it doesn’t appear on the version of the defendant’s CORI that an employer or housing provider would receive, but it remains available to courts and various state and federal agencies including law enforcement and child services.

Under current Massachusetts law, former defendants whose records have passed the waiting period need to file a petition to the Probation Department to start the sealing process. The petition is free, but the defendant needs to know that they are eligible for sealing and submit the form, which includes identifying the correct statutory provision and attesting that the statute’s requirements are met. Some people’s records might also be more complex, such as those with a mix of eligible and non-eligible charges, which creates the added complexity of requiring a separate petition to the court that issued the charges. A separate petition is usually required if the defendant seeks to seal a record of a dismissed or dropped charge before the end of the waiting period (a process known as discretionary sealing).

First Circuit Holds that School Districts, Not Parents, Decide School Policy and Rejects “Parental Rights” Argument to Out Transgender and Non-Binary Students

Published on: February 20, 2025 | by Naomi Shatz

Since 2012, Massachusetts laws have prohibited discrimination based on gender identity, including in education. The Massachusetts Department of Education has had longstanding guidance in place instructing schools to use students’ preferred names and pronouns while at school. This week, in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided whether a school policy that followed this state law and DOE guidance violates parents’ constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child. The school won. CONTINUE READING ›

Appeals Court Takes Step Backwards in Fighting Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

Published on: February 16, 2025 | by Tom Miller

More than forty-five years ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court led the nation in combatting racial discrimination by prosecutors in jury selection. In its landmark decision in Commonwealth v. Soares, the SJC held that the use of peremptory challenges by prosecutors to exclude members of racial (or other) minorities from a jury violated a defendant’s right under the Massachusetts Constitution to trial before an impartial jury of his or her peers. Seven years later, the federal Supreme Court cited Soares in reaching a similar decision (under the principle of equal protection) in Batson v. Kentucky. Unfortunately, last week the Massachusetts Appeals Court took a serious step backwards in this area. Its decision in Commonwealth v. Lopez-Ortiz takes an artificially narrow view of what discrimination in jury selection can look like, and seeks to limit the power of appellate courts to correct it. CONTINUE READING ›

Courts Enjoin Enforcement of Trump Executive Order Targeting Incarcerated Transgender People

Published on: February 16, 2025 | by Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP

By Anton Kernohan, legal intern

Throughout history, the LGBTQ+ community has persisted despite repeated laws and attempts to restrict the community’s rights. Since assuming office, President Trump has undertaken the most recent iteration of actions that once again threaten the lives of LGBTQ+ persons, especially transgender, non-binary, and intersex individuals. CONTINUE READING ›

Massachusetts Law Prohibits Schools from Complying with Anti-Trans Athlete Executive Order

Published on: February 8, 2025 | by Naomi Shatz

Youth sports are a huge part of the American education system, something many parents, schools, and communities place a high value on maintaining. Studies demonstrate the many mental, social, emotional, and physical benefits children derive from participating in organized athletics. In fact, during Trump’s previous presidency the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition Science Board published a pamphlet noting that “Research shows that participating in youth sports can lead to immediate and long-term benefits for youth, their families, and communities.” By executive order and federal agency guidance, President Trump is now trying to deny those benefits to trans girls and women who want to participate in sports with the rest of their peers. The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Title IX, and Massachusetts anti-discrimination statutes prohibit schools, colleges, universities, and athletic organizations from following the new executive order. CONTINUE READING ›

SJC Opinion Reverses Murder Conviction After Judge Fails To Adequately Investigate Possible Racial Bias On Jury

Published on: February 5, 2025 | by Tom Miller

The nineteenth-century French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville famously described the jury in the United States as “a free school which is always open and in which each juror learns his rights,” making it not only “the most energetic means of making the people rule,” but also “the most efficacious means of teaching it to rule well.” Unfortunately, the reality of juries is often somewhat more complicated. In particular, the risk of racial bias in jury deliberations has long been recognized, but efforts to combat it have run up against one of the most important features of jury deliberations: their secrecy. CONTINUE READING ›

What is the Current Status of Title IX and its Enforcement?

Published on: February 4, 2025 | by Naomi Shatz and Niamh Gibbons

In the last month, actions by the courts, the President, and Congress have significantly impacted and may further change how Title IX is enforced across the country.

Title IX: Background and Enforcement

Title IX is a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education. It is one of the shortest laws on the books, with the operative provision stating: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Laws like this can be enforced in two ways: through the courts and through administrative agencies. Individuals have a right to bring lawsuits under Title IX in court, where it is the job of the court to interpret what the law means. In addition, federal agencies has enforcement powers to investigate and address violations of federal law. For Title IX, that agency enforcement power rests with the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice. People whose right to be free from discrimination in education have been violated can file complaints with those agencies, which can then investigate the educational institutions and impose corrective action, including the withholding of federal funds. The U.S. Department of Education issues regulations interpreting the laws it enforces and explaining how it will apply those laws when it engages in enforcement action. In 2020 the first Trump administration issued regulations overhauling Title IX enforcement; in 2024 the Biden administration issued a new set of regulations that was immediately challenged in federal courts in various red states. CONTINUE READING ›

Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law: What it Does and Who it Covers

Published on: December 11, 2024 | by Naomi Shatz

In 2014 voters in the Commonwealth approved a ballot measure that created the Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law (G.L.c. 149 § 148C) (MESTL), which guarantees most Massachusetts workers up to 40 hours of earned sick time per year. Last month the coverage of the law expanded to cover physical and mental health needs arising from pregnancy, surrogacy, assisted reproductive technology, or adoption loss.

Who does the law apply to?

The law applies to almost all employees whose primary place of work is Massachusetts. The regulations under the law define “primary” place of work as a place the employee works more than any other place; for an employee who works in multiple states it is the state in which she spends the most of her time. For example, if an employee works remotely for a company, and spends 40% of her time working from Massachusetts, 30% working from Florida, and 30% working from California, Massachusetts would be the primary place of work. CONTINUE READING ›

SJC to Consider Admissibility of Alleged Victims’ Subsequent Violent Actions

Published on: December 2, 2024 | by Jennifer M. Herrmann

This week, the Supreme Judicial Court will hear argument in Commonwealth v. Andrade, a case in which I wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. This case addresses an important question about what evidence a criminal defendant can introduce to argue that they were not the first aggressor in a violent altercation.

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Adjutant, holding that a defendant can offer evidence of an alleged victim’s violent reputation and conduct to prove that the victim, rather than the defendant, was the first aggressor. This holding is one of a few limited exceptions to the general rule barring propensity evidence, or evidence of a person’s character trait to prove that they acted in accordance with that trait. The court in Adjutant decided that evidence reflecting a victim’s propensity for violence, whether or not the defendant knew about that propensity, would help the jury “make an informed decision about the identity of the initial aggressor.”

Andrade concerns a domestic dispute between a father and son. At trial, the court did not allow the defendant—the son—to introduce evidence that about one year after the charged incident, the father assaulted his wife. On appeal, Andrade presents a narrow, but new, question to the court: does the holding in Adjutant that a defendant can introduce evidence of a victim’s violent acts include conduct that happened after the charged incident?