Boston Lawyer Blog

Boston Employee Seeks Supreme Court Review of First Circuit’s Narrow Reading of Title VII’s Anti-Retaliation Provisions

Published on: May 18, 2022 | by Jennifer M. Herrmann

Title VII promises to protect employees who oppose workplace discrimination and harassment in good faith. Over time, judicial opinions have eroded this protection by creating an exception that has allowed employers to discipline employees if the employer deems that the manner of the employee’s complaints was insubordinate or disruptive. Last fall, the First Circuit affirmed this exception in a panel decision in Jenkins v. Housing Court Department. In that case, a Black Costa Rican employee emailed multiple discrimination complaints to his supervisors and various staff. The employer then terminated the employee for disobeying orders after he was told and refused, to cease his complaints. The First Circuit affirmed a ruling of summary judgment for the employer. Last month, the plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court of the United States to weigh in on a doctrine that has appeared in various forms in the lower courts and that, as scholars have noted, severely undercuts Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions.

The insubordination exception is not rooted in Title VII’s text or legislative history, but emerged in a 1976 preliminary injunction decision concluding that a female biologist whose employer characterized her pay complaints as disloyal and noncooperative was not protected by Title VII, Hochstadt v. Worcester Found. for Experimental Biology.

Most modern First Circuit Title VII cases—including Jenkins—draw the principle that anti-retaliation statutes do not protect employees from termination for insubordination from Mesnick v. General Electric Co., a First Circuit ADEA retaliation case in which the employer terminated an employee in part for his “confrontational attitude” and other interpersonal issues with coworkers and managers against whom he alleged age discrimination. Mesnick draws its reasoning from Jackson v. St. Joseph State Hospital, an Eighth Circuit Title VII case regarding a hospital accountant who was terminated for “highly offensive and disruptive” attempts to obtain a specific statement from a coworker to use in his sex discrimination case against the hospital. Jackson, in turn cites Hochstadt.

MA Appeals Court: Restraining Order Hearings Must Be Fair to Both Parties

Published on: April 4, 2022 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

Restraining orders are an essential tool that Massachusetts law makes available to help victims of abuse or harassment stay safe. Abuse prevention orders and harassment prevention orders (the two types of civil restraining orders available in Massachusetts) allow courts to impose restrictions on abuse and on contact. Some judges are very quick to grant requests for orders, sometimes after giving defendants scant opportunity to challenge a plaintiff’s claims. Seeking to prevent violence and other serious harm is a praiseworthy motive. But restraining orders carry significant consequences and their erroneous issuance can also cause real harm. Recently the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Idris I. v. Hazel H., reversed and vacated a restraining order because the trial court failed to give the defendant a fair hearing before issuing the order. CONTINUE READING ›

Commonwealth v. Sweeting-Bailey, a Backwards Step for Racial Justice

Published on: January 10, 2022 | by Jenna A. Agatep

“This court is very concerned about the disparate impact automobile stops have on persons of color and the national statistics on the fatalities suffered by such communities at the hands of police officers,” wrote Justice Cypher in a fractured plurality opinion for the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Sweeting-Bailey last month. Despite this acknowledgment, the majority of the SJC justices agreed to grant police officers power to continue targeting communities of color and low-income neighborhoods as it confirms that police officers can consider subjective factors in deciding whether to search a passenger in a stopped car.

SJC Protects Employees from Retaliation in New Decision

Published on: December 20, 2021 | by Naomi Shatz

On Friday the Supreme Judicial Court handed employees a decisive victory, holding in Meehan v. Medical Information Technology, Inc. that employers cannot retaliate against employees who exercise their statutory rights to file rebuttals in their personnel record. In so holding, the SJC overturned a decision of the Appeals Court from earlier this year (which we discussed on this blog). The Appeals Court had held that while the state’s personnel records law gives employees the right to submit written responses to documents in their personnel records with which they disagree, because the Legislature did not write a provision prohibiting retaliation for exercising that right, an employer could fire the employee for submitting such a rebuttal.

The SJC overturned the Appeals Court. In an opinion written by Justice Kafker, the Court held that a termination in retaliation for an employee exercising their rights under the personnel records statute violates the Commonwealth’s public policy. While Massachusetts is generally an “at-will” employment state—meaning an employer has the right to terminate an employee at any time for (almost) any reason—there are statutory exceptions to that rule. An employer cannot fire an employee for discriminatory reasons, or because the employee engaged in certain protected activity, like making complaints about discrimination, health and safety issues, or equal pay issues. Where there is no statute preventing an employer from terminating an employee, the only common law constraint on employers is that they cannot terminate an employee for reasons that would violate a public policy. As Justice Kafker noted in his opinion, the Court previously held the public policy doctrine has been recognized “for asserting a legally guaranteed right (e.g., filing a worker’s compensation claim), for doing what the law requires (e.g., serving on a jury), or for refusing to do that which the law forbids (e.g., committing perjury)” and for employees performing important public deeds. When an employee’s actions fall under one of these categories they are protected from termination.

In Meehan the Court held that the rights created by the public records law fall under the first category of the public policy exception to the at-will employment rule: when an employee files a rebuttal in their personnel record they are asserting a legally guaranteed right. In coming to this decision, the Court noted that the Appeals Court had weighed whether the statutory right set forth in the personnel record law was “important.” While the Appeals Court had concluded it was not, the SJC disagreed. The Court held that “the right of rebuttal and accuracy of information in personnel files” is important for employees to protect their ability to seek other employment, for future employers to have accurate information about the people they hire, and for evaluating employers’ compliance with Massachusetts laws. More importantly, however, the Court held that whether a right is “important” is not a decision a Court should make determining whether an employee was terminated in violation of public policy for asserting a legal right. The Court stated that by passing the personnel record statute, the Legislature had already made the decision that the right is important. This holding will extend beyond the context of the Meehan case; where the Legislature has created a statutory right, Meehan should be read to mean that the exercise of that right will always be protected from retaliation under the public policy exception, even if the statute itself does not contain an anti-retaliation provision.

Commonwealth v. Daveiga: The Next Review of Pretextual Traffic Stops

Published on: November 10, 2021 | by Jennifer M. Herrmann

“Where the police have observed a traffic violation, they are warranted in stopping a vehicle.” The Supreme Judicial Court made this statement more than thirty years ago, summarizing what came to be known as a basic premise of operating a motor vehicle in the United States.

ZDB is Hiring!

Published on: November 10, 2021 | by Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP

Boston Criminal Defense & Civil Litigation Firm Paralegal/Legal Assistant Position

We are a fifteen-lawyer firm located in the North End/Waterfront of Boston, with an interesting, varied, fast-paced practice in criminal defense and civil litigation (including employment, students’ rights, and other academic cases). We seek a motivated Paralegal/Legal Assistant with a strong educational background, excellent interpersonal skills, proficiency with the Microsoft Office Suite (including Word, Excel and Outlook) and solid typing skills (70+ wpm). Interest in social media is a plus and previous office experience is desirable. This is an entry-level position that requires a minimum two-year commitment. Organization, attention to detail, self-sufficiency, problem-solving, and taking initiative are essential skills. We are looking for a candidate to start summer 2022. Please email resume and cover letter to the attention of Elena Jacob at resume@zalkindlaw.com. The position will be open until filled.

Sex, Violence, and Consent in Massachusetts

Published on: October 28, 2021 | by Ruth O'Meara-Costello

In many contexts, rules and codes of conduct have moved from evaluating the lawfulness or permissibility of sex based upon the presence or absence of force to instead evaluating whether the sex happened with or without consent. This is particularly true on college campuses, almost all of which have a definition of consent—usually affirmative or effective consent—that sex must meet in order to be allowed under campus policies. Many people—and particularly college-age students who have been trained on affirmative consent policies—think almost exclusively in terms of consent when considering whether sex is lawful or permissible. CONTINUE READING ›

Lin v. GGIT Systems: Chapter 151B May Require Accommodations for High-Risk Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Published on: October 19, 2021 | by Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP

By Mackenzie Bouverat, Law Student Intern

As states begin to lift restrictions designed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, some employers have begun to require that their employees return to some form of in-person work, whether full-time or hybrid. Yet even for the fully vaccinated, the risk of infection is not eliminated. And for employees with disabilities, the possibility of contracting COVID-19 may present a grave risk. CONTINUE READING ›

The Fine Line Between “Plain View” and Privacy Invasion: Commonwealth v. Yusuf

Published on: September 20, 2021 | by Jenna A. Agatep

The use of body-worn cameras by the Boston Police Department has sparked controversy since its pilot program in 2016 and its official implementation in 2019. While the City and the Police Department have marked this move as an effort to be more transparent with the community, citizens claim that such a goal of transparency cannot be achieved within a broken system. Boston Police Department has equipped more than 1,000 officers over the city with body cameras, yet there have been minimal compliance checks and investigations into the misuse of these cameras and footage. Instead, there are a handful of loopholes that permit officers to use the footage at their discretion, putting civilians’ lives at risk for privacy invasion. To further complicate the limitations police officers have in using their body-worn camera footage, the official Body Worn Camera Policy of the Boston Police Department contains ambiguous and few rules regarding the improper use of footage. In Sec. 4.2 of Rule 405, the department enumerates five improper uses of body-worn camera footage; none of which emphasizes a civilian’s privacy nor prohibits the use of the footage for other cases than the one from which the footage originated.

Advice for Parents of Incoming College Students: What You and Your Child Need to Know About Sexual Assault and Harassment

Published on: August 13, 2021 | by Monica Shah

August is upon us and millions of college students across the country will be beginning their fall terms, including many first-year students who have just become adults and have spent little time away from their families or communities. If you are a parent of an incoming student, you may be helping your child pack, stock up on ramen, move into their dorm, and get oriented to a sprawling and likely overwhelming college campus. While you are preparing your child for a new stage of their life and hopefully independence and responsibility, this is the time to familiarize yourself with the college’s policies on sexual assault, harassment, and other misconduct. Two years ago the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) issued regulations related to sexual misconduct on campus (for a summary see our blog posts here); and here in Massachusetts a new law went into effect last year, changing how schools are required to handle sexual misconduct cases. It is important to ensure that your child is aware of their school’s specific rules and knows their rights and responsibilities, as well as the risks of any criminal exposure that may arise from sexual behavior.