Why Reviewing Past Case Decisions Is Important for Learning Business Law

When March began this twelvemonth, nobody had whatsoever idea what was just around the corner – a global pandemic, a fiscal meltdown, unprecedented unemployment and a national reckoning with the terrible consequences of centuries of racial violence and inequity. Then we all witnessed a historic conclusion from the Supreme Courtroom, affirming, at long last, that our family and friends in the LBGTQ community are protected from discrimination in employment nether federal law.

In this e'er-changing landscape, it is increasingly important to keep upwards to speed on the latest employment legal cases and developments. Below is a brief summary of the seven virtually significant employment legal cases.

1. U.South. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Civil Rights Decision

Bostock v. Clayton Canton, 590 U.S. (2020)

The Supreme Courtroom has issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County , belongings that Title VII prohibits discrimination confronting employees based upon sexual orientation and transgender status.

In the vi-3 Opinion of the Courtroom, written by Justice Gorsuch — who, along with Master Justice Roberts, sided with the iv "liberal" members of the Courtroom — the bulk held that a "straightforward" dominion emerges from the ordinary significant and application of Title VII'south prohibition against sexual practice discrimination:

"[F]or an employer to discriminate against employees for existence homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex . That has always been prohibited by Title VII's apparently terms — and that should exist the cease of the analysis.'"

Such bigotry has long been a violation of Massachusetts law, Chapter 151B, simply with the Bostock decision, it is now clearly unlawful to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

2. Unlawful Employment Practices During the COVID-xix Pandemic

During these uncertain times, employers and employees alike are struggling to understand their legal rights and obligations. To that end, there has been a great deal of COVID-specific guidance provided past state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Equal Employment Commission , Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination , and Office of the Attorney Full general .

It is important to remember that neither a global pandemic nor an economic recession tin be used every bit a shield past employers to comport out unlawful employment practices.

Indeed, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has noted, simply considering an employer may be required to "reduce its workforce does not mean that information technology is gratuitous to brand its employment decisions on impermissible grounds: 'even during a legitimate reorganization or workforce reduction, an employer may not dismiss employees for unlawful discriminatory reasons.'" See Sullivan 5. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 444 Mass. 34, 41–42 (2005).

If you recollect that you may have been illegally targeted, seek legal counsel as soon as possible and prior to waiving whatsoever legal rights.

three. Breach of Contract Damages for the Loss of One's Life'due south Piece of work

Hlatky 5. Steward Health Care Arrangement, Inc., 484 Mass. 566 (2020)

Following a jury trial, Dr. Hlatky, an experienced cancer researcher, was awarded $10 one thousand thousand in damages in a alienation of contract action against her former employer, Steward Health. The $10 one thousand thousand damage award represented the price of reestablishing her research laboratory, which she lost as a outcome of Defendant'southward unlawful conduct.

On appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously agreed the amercement awarded were non as well speculative, noting that the impairment suffered by Dr. Hlatky, including the loss of her enquiry laboratory, equipment, and cell samples, constituted her "life's work."

The Court was, however, divided regarding whether restrictions should be imposed on how Dr. Hlatky could use the $10 one thousand thousand award. In the six Justice decision, 3 Justices were concerned that, since the laboratory had non actually belonged to Dr. Hlatky, an unrestricted award might put Dr. Hlatky in a amend position than she would have been had there been no breach, e.thou., "[n]othing would preclude Hlatky from spending the $10 1000000 on a business firm or a yacht rather than on the reestablishment of a cancer inquiry laboratory."

The other three Justice were not persuaded, "Whether she wishes to start again, whether she fifty-fifty could kickoff again after then much time has passed and her faculty position has been lost, whether she wishes to use the coin to fund different research or others; research in the same field, or whether she wants to hike the Appalachian trail — these matters simply are non our concern."

These Justices pointed out that imposing restrictions on such a damage award would open up a "Pandora'due south box of unknown futurity harm to the predictability of contract constabulary upon which contracting parties accept relied for hundreds of years."

As the Courtroom was equally divided, the trial court's award of monetary damages – without restrictions – was affirmed.

iv. Non-Competition Agreements and the "Material Change" Doctrine

Now Autobus. Intel., Inc. 5. Donahue, C.A. No. 17-3732 (Middlesex Sup Ct. Apr. 1, 2020)

A non-contest agreement may become unenforceable if, afterwards execution, the terms and conditions of employment are modified to the bespeak where the parties accept effectively abandoned the original employment agreement and entered into a new employment agreement. This is known as the "textile change" doctrine which was delineated in F.A. Bartlett Tree Skillful Co. v. Barrington, 353 Mass. 585 (1968). The application of the cloth change doctrine is a highly fact-specific enquiry and will focus on factors, such every bit promotions, changes in job duties and titles, changes in remuneration, changes to sales expanse, as well every bit the associated time periods for such changes.

In the recent example of At present Motorcoach. Intel. Inc. V. Donahue , the Superior Court rejected an employee's material change defense to the enforceability of his non-compete. In granting Summary Judgment in favor of the erstwhile employer, the Court ultimately held that the temporary and short-term changes to the employee's chore duties, without more, did not amount to a cloth modify sufficient to render otherwise reasonable and valid mail service-employment restriction unenforceable.

5. Anti-SLAPP Motion Revived

Rosario v. Caring Bees Healthcare, Inc., C.A. No. 19-P-1223 (Mass. App. Ct. June five, 2020)

Retaliatory lawsuits designed to silence one from speaking out are referred to as strategic lawsuits confronting public participation, or "SLAPP Suits," and are expressly forbidden in Massachusetts. Come across the Anti-SLAPP Statute, Thou.G.50. c. 231, § 59H (the "Statute"). The Statute provides a quick mechanism to dispose of SLAPP suits, and it allows the victim of a SLAPP arrange to recover attorney's fees.

Hither, Ms. Rosario had complained (to co-workers, her mother, the MCAD, and, finally, in court) of sexual harassment by her supervisor, Jean Paul Karangwa. In response, Mr. Karangwa counter-sued Ms. Rosario for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Relying on the Statute, Ms. Rosario moved to dismiss Mr. Karangwa's counter-claims. The lower court denied her move, indicating that there was a colorable basis to believe that Ms. Rosario's statements were defamatory, i.e ., false and causing impairment to Mr. Karangwa.

However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed and remanded. The Court reiterated that the legal effect was not solely whether Mr. Karangwa's claims were "colorable" merely also, if so, whether or not they were retaliatory, i.east. , "primarily brought to chill [Ms. Rosario's] legitimate petitioning activities."

In considering whether or not Mr. Karangwa'south counterclaims were retaliatory, the lower court should consider, among other things, (1) whether the claims are 'typical' SLAPP claims, east.thou., claims that one would not likely bring on their own, (2) the temporal proximity of when the counter-claims were brought to when Ms. Rosario engaged in escalated protected activeness, east.g., when Ms. Rosario filed her claims to court, and (3) the spooky impact on such activity by, for case, increasing the price to Ms. Rosario of complaining near sexual harassment.

The example was remanded to the lower court for a sequential application of the correct anti-SLAPP standard.

vi. Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements

Theodore 5. Uber Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 18-cv-12147 (D. Mass. Mar. 3, 2020)

Many executives (and employees generally) are subject to arbitration clauses of which they are unaware until a dispute arises. The enforceability of such clauses is often hotly disputed. This is particularly truthful in civil rights cases, pitting two established principles confronting each other ( i.e. , the preference for mediation under federal law against a strong public policy against discrimination). Enforceability is often fact-specific, such as whether the understanding to arbitrate and the waiver of judicial remedy are sufficiently obvious and clear.

Although Theodore is not an employment case, its analysis may exist useful, especially regarding on-line forms that invite a user to follow one or more than links which can exist easily bypassed. The US District Courtroom'south analysis involved not merely a review of the text itself just besides a discussion of the font size, layout, and background colour on the folio. The Court went so far as to include screen-shots in the decision.

Ultimately, the Court refused to compel arbitration where Uber invited a customer to click to "CREATE Account" without "reasonably communicating" the impact of doing so.

7. The Procedure – and Not But the Final Conclusion – Matters

Comcast Corp. v. Nat'l Assoc. of African American-Owned Media, 140 Southward.Ct. 1009 (2020)

In Comcast , the Supreme Courtroom of the United states unanimously held that the but-for causation standard applies to claims of racial discrimination raised under 42 U.s.C. § 1981, a statute which guarantees all persons the aforementioned right "to make and enforce contracts . . . equally is enjoyed by white citizens." Nonetheless, the Court expressly declined to decide an issue raised by Comcast, i.e , whether § 1981(a) guarantees just the right to equivalent contractual outcomes, as Comcast argued, or if it likewise guarantees the right to an equivalent contracting process, as the law has been interpreted for years.

In her concurrence, Justice Ginsburg addressed Comcast'south argument directly:

"I write separately to resist Comcast'southward attempt to cabin a 'sweeping' constabulary designed to 'intermission down all discrimination betwixt blackness men and white men" … Under Comcast's view, § 1981 countenances racial discrimination so long as it occurs in advance of the concluding contract-formation decision. Thus, a lender would not violate § 1981by requiring prospective borrowers to provide one reference letter if they are white and five if they black. Nor would an employer violate § 1981 by reimbursing expenses for white interviewees but requiring black applicants to pay their own way … That view cannot be squared with the statute. An equal 'correct … to make… contracts' … is an empty promise without equal opportunities to present or receive offers and negotiate over terms … Information technology is implausible that a police 'intended to secure … practical freedom' … would disregard discriminatory barriers to contract formation."

As Justice Ginsburg recognized, and recent events have made abundantly clear, we must remain vigilant to protect and aggrandize, not erode, our ceremonious rights laws.

batesdictephe52.blogspot.com

Source: https://workforce.com/news/the-top-7-recent-employment-law-cases-you-should-know

Share this post