The Act to Establish Pay Equity, amending G.L. c.149, §105A (MA Pay Equity Law), goes into effect July 1, 2018. All employers, regardless of number of employees, whose employees perform all or the greater part of their work in Massachusetts, are required to comply with the MA Pay Equity Law.
One of the law’s notable aspects is that a potential employer cannot ask a job candidate what his/her prior salary history is. Many employers regularly ask job candidates what they make as a way of gauging whether they can meet the compensation expectations of a job candidate or, in some cases, trying to determine the least amount of pay to offer. In this day of networking, management-level employees may also receive job inquiries from potential candidates, and it is not uncommon for managers to ask, “How much are you making now?” as a threshold question, to determine whether the inquiry is worth passing on. Unfortunately, if such benign questions are asked, the candidate may bring a legal claim for violating the MA Pay Equity Law.
With such a low threshold to assert a legal claim, what should you do? First, make sure all employees know that, under no … Keep reading
Effective April 1, 2018, for employers with six or more employees, Massachusetts’ prohibitions on discrimination in the workplace have been expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. The Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act specifically makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee based on lactation or the need to express breast milk for a nursing child. Further, if an employee requests an accommodation for pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition, an employer will be required to engage in a timely, good faith, “interactive process” to determine an effective, reasonable accommodation that enables the employee to be able to perform the essential functions of her position, just as an employer is required to do for an employee with a disability.
Reasonable accommodations under the new law include:
- more frequent or longer paid or unpaid breaks;
- time off to attend to a pregnancy complication or recover from childbirth;
- acquisition or modification of equipment or seating;
- temporary transfer to a less strenuous or hazardous position;
- job restructuring;
- light duty;
- private non-bathroom space for expressing breast milk;
- assistance with manual labor; and
- a modified work schedule.
Although employers are allowed to seek medical verification for certain types of accommodations, medical … Keep reading
Massachusetts employers will soon see the impact of House Bill 3822, signed last year by Governor Charlie Baker. In an effort to offset the significant shift from commercial to publicly subsidized health care coverage, in 2018 and 2019, there will be an increase in the existing Employer Medical Assistance Contribution, as well as a new supplemental fee for employers whose non-disabled employees either receive coverage through the Massachusetts Division of Medical Assistance (MassHealth) or have their coverage subsidized by the Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector Authority (ConnectorCare).
Beginning in the first quarter of 2018, all employers will likely see an increase in their existing EMAC, assessed through the Department of Unemployment Assistance. The increase is intended to be temporary and applicable to wages paid in calendar year 2018.
Additionally, employers with more than five employees who are non-disabled and receive health care coverage through MassHealth or receive subsidized care through ConnectorCare for a period of at least 56 continuous days, will be assessed a supplemental fee of up to 5% of a covered employee’s unemployment insurance taxable wages (up to a cap of $750 per covered employee). The assessment will be based on wages on record with the DUA for … Keep reading
As I have written before, the Massachusetts Weekly Payment of Wages Act obligates employers to pay all earned wages to employees in a timely fashion. The Wage Act also specifies that the “president and treasurer of a corporation and any officers or agents having the management of such corporation” are personally liable for violations. In Segal v. Genitrix, LLC, et al., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, interpreting the phrase “agent having the management of the corporation” for the first time since it was added to the Wage Act in 1935, ruled that, as long as board members and investors acted in their ordinary capacities, they were not such agents and could not personally be liable for violations.
In Segal, the former president and chief executive officer of Genitrix, asserted that two former board members of the company, H. Fisk Johnson III and Stephen Rose, should be individually liable for wages that Segal claimed he was owed for services he performed for the company. Neither Johnson nor Rose was the president, treasurer, or any other officer of Genitrix. The Appeals Court, relying on Cook v. Patient Edu, ruled that Segal might have viable claims against Johnson and … Keep reading
In a recent decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has made it clear that employers cannot take action against employees who lawfully use medical marijuana, as doing so is tantamount to denying a request for a reasonable accommodation under the Commonwealth’s disability discrimination laws.
In Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC, the SJC reversed the dismissal of an employee’s handicap discrimination claim, alleging that her employer terminated her because of her lawful medical use of marijuana, and failed to engage in an interactive process to discuss a reasonable accommodation of her handicap. The employee had failed her employer’s drug test because of her use of marijuana, which was prescribed to treat her Crohn’s disease.
Interestingly, the SJC rejected the employer’s defense that the use of medical marijuana in the workplace is not a facially unreasonable accommodation simply because such use still is a crime under federal law. To the contrary, the SJC ruled that, under Massachusetts law, no person shall be denied “any right or privilege” on the basis of her medical marijuana use, even if such use may constitute a federal crime.
Thus, for an employee who has a qualified handicap under the disability discrimination laws, … Keep reading
When Massachusetts voters legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes four years ago, the impact on most employers was limited to clarifying that “legal” marijuana use was still generally prohibited in the workplace. Now, Massachusetts has legalized limited use of recreational marijuana. Although the recreational marijuana use law also provides that employers may prohibit employees from reporting to work or performing work under the influence of marijuana, the new law is raising practical challenges for employers. Here are three ways that employers may consider changing what they have been doing:
1. Pre-employment Drug Testing
Many employers require job candidates to successfully pass a drug test as a condition to receiving a job offer. Prior to the legalization of marijuana, a positive test for marijuana use by a job candidate was an indication of illegal drug use and clear grounds for rescinding an offer of employment. Since legalization of medical and recreational use, from a legal standpoint, rescinding a job offer based on testing positive for marijuana use is still generally permitted. From a practical standpoint, however, the rationale that marijuana use is illegal no longer exists and brings into question the rationale for drug testing for marijuana at … Keep reading
On November 22, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the request of 21 states to temporarily halt the effective date the U.S. Department of Labor’s Final Rule (“Final Rule”) raising the salary threshold to qualify for the white collar exemptions from minimum wage and overtime requirements from taking effect. Accordingly, the Final Rule will not take effect on December 1, 2016.… Keep reading
The new Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) allows owners of trade secrets to now bring a civil action in federal court to protect their trade secrets and confidential information. Further, under the DTSA, a trade secret owner may be awarded actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution, the extraordinary relief of ex parte seizure orders and, if there is willful or malicious misappropriation, exemplary damages (up to double damages) and attorneys’ fees. Although the DTSA is a big win for employers seeking to protect their trade secrets and confidential information, employers may be precluded from being awarded exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees if the employee’s confidentiality agreement does not contain an express exception for disclosures related to whistleblowing.… Keep reading
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.… Keep reading
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.… Keep reading