Boston Lawyer Blog

Legislature’s Expansion of Abuse Prevention Orders Raises Concerns of Vagueness and Confusion

Published on: June 26, 2024 | by David Russcol

As part of a bill broadly aiming to protect victims of abuse, including revenge porn and deepfakes, the Massachusetts legislature recently enacted an amendment to the restraining order statute that may have substantial unintended consequences. Although the well-intentioned provision allows a person suffering from “coercive control” to seek an abuse prevention order, there are numerous undefined or poorly-specified terms that are likely to create confusion in the courts. In addition, the amended statute may allow children to obtain restraining orders against their parents for normal parenting decisions, surely not what the General Court had in mind. CONTINUE READING ›

First Circuit Upholds Dress Code Prohibiting “There are Only Two Genders” Shirt

Published on: June 10, 2024 | by Naomi Shatz

Yesterday, the First Circuit issued its decision in L.M. v. Middleborough et al., a case we discussed previously on this blog. The case concerned whether a public middle school could prohibit a student from wearing a t-shirt that said “There are only two genders.” The district court had held that the school could, relying on the seminal case of Tinker v. DeMoines Independent Community School District. CONTINUE READING ›

What to do if you’re placed on administrative leave

Published on: June 5, 2024 | by Jennifer M. Herrmann

Being placed on administrative leave can feel like limbo – you still have your job, but you’ve been told to stay away from your workplace, and perhaps your colleagues, often for an unknown amount of time. In this difficult situation, it’s important to learn about your legal rights and proceed cautiously with your workplace relationships to safeguard your career and well-being.

What is administrative leave, and why does it happen?

Administrative leave is when an employer removes an employee from the workplace and their job duties temporarily but, typically, continues to provide the employee with their salary and benefits. A person on administrative leave is still employed, and most employers distinguish between a non-disciplinary administrative leave and a disciplinary suspension. Administrative leave often happens when there is an allegation of misconduct against an employee. An employer may place an employee on leave to investigate allegations or to address concerns about disruptiveness or dangerousness in the workplace. In Massachusetts, where an employee must be paid in full on the day of termination, employers will sometimes place an employee on a short administrative leave pending a known termination date in order to ensure that they can comply with the Wage Act by providing full payment on the last day of work. Administrative leaves can also be mutually agreed on in some circumstances, like a sabbatical or unpaid leave.

The Supreme Court Clarifies the Requisite Harm Employees Must Show to Bring Viable Discrimination Claims Based on Job Transfers

Published on: May 20, 2024 | by Lucie Gulino

On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court held that an employee bringing a discrimination claim under Title VII based on a job transfer does not need to show that she suffered significant harm with respect to the transfer, only that she suffered some harm.

Background Facts

Sergeant Jatonya Muldrow worked as a plainclothes officer at the St. Louis Police Department in the specialized Intelligence Division from 2008 through 2017. As part of her position, Sergeant Muldrow was deputized as a Task Force Officer with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which granted her FBI credentials, an unmarked take-home vehicle, and the authority to pursue investigation outside St. Louis. She also worked with high-ranking officials on the Intelligence Division and worked a traditional Monday through Friday schedule.

SJC Clarifies How far Colleges and Universities can go in Reducing Salaries and Funding for Tenured Faculty Members

Published on: April 1, 2024 | by Tom Miller

Tenure is a crucial foundation for academic freedom at colleges and universities. Once professors receive tenure, they have a lifetime job from which it is very difficult for them to be fired. Nonetheless, tenure alone does not insulate a faculty member from institutional pressure. After all, the school still sets pay and benefits, chooses recipients for grants and awards, sets teaching assignments and schedules, and more. Faculty members in the sciences, whose research depends on access to expensive labs and equipment, are particularly dependent on financial support from their institutions.

In a decision issued in early March in Henry Wortis v. Trustees of Tufts College, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took on the question of what protections tenure gives professors from pay cuts and loss of access to lab space. The case was brought by eight faculty members at the Tufts University School of Medicine—including Henry Wortis, a Professor of Immunology—who were granted tenure at various points between 1970 and 2009. In 2017 and 2019, Tufts adopted new policies under which professors who failed to cover a certain percentage of their salaries with external grants could have their pay reduced. These policies resulted in very significant decreases in compensation for the plaintiffs: Wortis’s annual salary, for instance, fell from approximately $190,000 to around $97,000. Many of the plaintiffs also had their appointments reduced to less than full-time, potentially exposing them to tenure revocation procedures. Additionally, in 2016, Tufts also adopted a policy tying the availability of lab space to the coverage of indirect costs by external grant funding brought in by faculty members. Several of the plaintiffs had their lab space reduced under this policy, impeding their ability to conduct research.

After pursuing an internal grievance procedure, the faculty plaintiffs sued the university in 2019 for breach of contract and other claims, based on both the reduction of the compensation and the loss of lab space. A Superior Court judge granted summary judgment to Tufts on all counts, and the plaintiffs appealed. In an opinion by Justice Scott Kafker, the SJC affirmed the judgement with respect to the lab space issue, but reversed on the issue of compensation, sending the case back to the trial court.

First Circuit Hears Oral Argument in “There are Only Two Genders” T-Shirt Case

Published on: February 28, 2024 | by Naomi Shatz

Two weeks ago the First Circuit heard oral argument in a case that touches on some of the most hot-button issues in education law: student speech rights and discrimination against LGBTQ students. In L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, the Court must decide whether the Middleborough public schools could tell a student he was not allowed to wear a t-shirt that says: “There are only two genders.”

The case started in March 2023, when seventh grader L.M. wore a shirt to school that said “there are only two genders.” L.M. made this political statement against a backdrop – according to the school—of repeated concerns at the school about bullying of LGBTQ students and several students at the school contemplating or attempting to die by suicide, including students who attributed those actions to anti-LGBTQ experiences at the school. After receiving complaints from students and staff, the principal told L.M. he had to take the shirt off if he wanted to go back to class. L.M. declined, and his parents picked him up and took him home for the rest of the day. L.M. was not disciplined for wearing the shirt and wore other shirts with various political messages with no incident. In May 2023 L.M. wore the shirt to school again—this time with a piece of tape that read “censored” covering the words “only two.” L.M. was sent to the principal during his first class and removed the shirt rather than be excluded from school for the rest of the day.

The District Court Case

App-Based Workers as Employees? Back to the SJC Before Back to the Ballot

Published on: February 12, 2024 | by Jennifer M. Herrmann

The ongoing battle over the employment rights of app-based drivers reached a new stage last week, when a group of drivers and union leaders brought a lawsuit to block a new set of ballot measures aimed at exempting app-based drivers from employment protections.

When workers are categorized as employees, rather than independent contractors, the law requires their employer to provide them with certain benefits and protections. In Massachusetts, the test for determining who is an employee for purposes of the Wage Act is particularly inclusive. In the growing gig economy, providing gig workers with the expansive protections the law grants employees can be costly for employers, which has led to many battles over gig workers’ status.

In Massachusetts, that battle grew serious in July 2020, when then-Attorney General Maura Healey filed a lawsuit in against Uber and Lyft on behalf of drivers, seeking a declaration that they qualify as employees under the Massachusetts Wage Act. That lawsuit is currently scheduled for trial in May of this year.

Massachusetts Proposed Legislation Would Create Broad Workplace Protections Against Bullying and Abuse at Work

Published on: January 29, 2024 | by Lucie Gulino

Massachusetts could become the first state in the country to enact a broad workplace anti-abuse law intended to hold employers liable for perpetuating, condoning, or ignoring psychological abuse at work. On October 10, 2023, Massachusetts had the highest number of advocates in the nation ever testify in front of the legislature in favor of anti-abuse legislation in the workplace. Workers, employment attorneys, human resources professionals and others urged the Massachustts Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development to pass the Workplace Psychological Safety Act. The committee has until February to move the proposed bill forward.

Massachusetts Court Overturns Expulsion of Harvard Student on Contract and Basic Fairness Grounds

Published on: January 4, 2024 | by David Russcol

A recent decision against Harvard University in favor of a student accused of sexual assault demonstrates a viable path to challenging student discipline decisions. As we have discussed previously, courts are wary of interfering with academic decisions of universities, but have been willing to hold schools accountable for failing to follow their own established policies in student disciplinary processes. Where a student handbook or other policy promises certain protections, courts will defend the reasonable expectations of students who encounter a process significantly less fair than what the university agreed to provide. These principles came into play in the “Dr. Doe” case, recently decided by the Massachusetts Superior Court.

Massachusetts Firearms Laws Still In Flux After Supreme Court’s Decision in Bruen

Published on: December 11, 2023 | by Tom Miller

In 2022 the Supreme Court recognized for the first time a constitutional right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public, outside of the home, for the purpose of self-defense. As we observed earlier this year, courts and legislatures across the country are still trying to figure out the meaning and limits of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Several pending cases in different jurisdictions could dramatically affect the rights of defendants—including those in Massachusetts—facing criminal charges related to firearms.

What firearms licensing regimes remain acceptable after Bruen? Bruen overturned licensing schemes that relied on non-objective, discretionary criteria for whether licenses could issue (so-called “may issue” regimes). This November, the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore, applying Bruen to invalidate the firearms licensing scheme in Maryland. Maryland’s scheme relied on objective criteria (a so-called “shall issue” system) and thus observers initially assumed it would survive Bruen. The system, however, was somewhat complex: in addition to a registration process for each firearm and a process for obtaining a carry permit, Maryland required would-be gun-owners to obtain a “handgun qualification license” that required finger-printing, to take a four-hour training course, and to wait up to 30 days for approval. For two Republican-appointed judges on the Fourth Circuit, this went too far to comply with Bruen’s recognition of a fundamental right to carry firearms, despite suggestions in Bruen that requiring background checks and safety courses was still acceptable. Maryland has petitioned the Fourth Circuit to rehear the case before the entire court. In the meantime, the decision suggests that the licensing scheme in Massachusetts, although recently revised to be made into a “shall issue” system to comply with Bruen, could still be vulnerable to challenge.

Another issue concerns the carrying of firearms across state lines. Massachusetts’ gun laws are quite strict, while some of its very nearby neighbors have extremely relaxed legal regimes. For instance, G.L. c. 269, § 10(a), the Massachusetts law punishing carrying a firearm without a license, imposes a mandatory minimum prison sentence of eighteen months. In New Hampshire, by contrast, less than an hour north of Boston, carrying a firearm in public without a license is completely legal. In August of this year, a state District Court judge in Lowell dismissed carrying charges on the grounds that the defendant was a legal resident of New Hampshire. The judge reasoned that the ability to exercise a fundamental constitutional right could not shift so dramatically just because the defendant crossed a state line. The Commonwealth has appealed the ruling to the Appeals Court, where the case is currently pending.