Earlier this year, in Mandatory Paid Sick Leave — What In-House Counsel and Employers Need to Know, I previewed some of the requirements of the Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law. Final regulations were issued by the Attorney General’s office on June 22, 2015. Almost one month after the deadline for compliance, how are you doing in complying with the new law? If you’re like many employers, you may still be figuring it all out. Here are four key points all employers should be aware of.
I’ve been involved in many cases where it is alleged that someone violated his or her non-compete agreement or misappropriated the company’s confidential information or trade secrets. Often, the key issue has been not what the former employee did, but what the company did not do to protect the information it contends is proprietary. The issue of failing to protect one’s confidential information and trade secrets was highlighted recently in the Appeals Court decision of Head Over Heels Gymnastics, Inc. v. Ware.
Because over 95 percent of civil disputes are resolved without a final judgment, parties routinely enter into settlement agreements that include releases. Further, for those disputes that do not spawn formal litigation, it is not uncommon for in-house counsel or senior business executives to take the lead in a settlement. As such, it is important for anyone dealing with a settlement to understand how even a few words in a settlement agreement can make a big difference in the scope of a release.
Two weeks ago, I participated on a panel for a webinar on liquidated damages with three other panelists from New Jersey, Florida and Texas. In preparing with the other panelists, I was surprised to learn that while there are many common threads running through the law of liquidated damages across the country, there also are some startling differences depending upon which jurisdiction’s law controls.
When thinking about liquidated damages, most people focus on the fact that a properly drafted liquidated damages provision will enable the non-breaching party to recover a set amount without ever having to prove how much, if any, actual damages were incurred. What people often forget to consider, however, is that a liquidated damages clause also sets a ceiling for damages.
Convincing a court that a company has properly classified a worker as an independent contractor has become increasingly difficult in Massachusetts. So, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision just last week that taxicab drivers are, in fact, properly classified as independent contractors was somewhat unexpected.
In this installment of The In-House Advisor, we interview Stacey Constas, Senior Corporate Attorney / Corporate Governance Officer at Standex International Corporation, a global manufacturer of industrial components and food service equipment, trading on the NYSE. In addition to serving as the Chief Governance Officer, Stacey manages all employment, product liability, litigation and environmental compliance for the corporation. She also is a corporate generalist, conducting acquisitions and divestitures, and assisting business divisions with a wide variety of commercial, contractual and legal issues.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a new test applies for pregnancy discrimination. In Young v. UPS, the Supremes decided that in pregnancy discrimination actions under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), the long-standing McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting test does not apply. Employers should ensure their policies, especially any light duty policies, comply with the Young decision.
It makes perfect sense that when entering into a new business relationship the parties (and their counsel) are keenly focused on getting things started. While there is nothing wrong with this, sometimes parties forget to memorialize, or even discuss, when, how and under what circumstances their contractual obligations will end. A recent case from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, Robert and Ardis James Foundation v. Meyers, reminds us that failing to spell out when a contract ends can result in seemingly unfair consequences.
No doubt, ensuring that any agreement is consistent with judicial precedent is critical if you want to enforce that agreement at some point in the future. Nevertheless, merely incorporating precedential concepts or language into an agreement may not be enough to get your client to where it wants to be, and may even result in your client being put in a more difficult position than if the precedent had been ignored. Nowhere is this more apparent than when a company seeks to draft and implement a standard and seemingly straightforward noncompete covenant.