Bennett & Belfort P.C.
The B&B Docket Blog
Developments in the Dynamic World
of Business and Employment Law

BELFORT PUBLISHES ARTICLE ON UNPLUGGING

Posted on: May 3rd, 2016 by admin

2013 David B photo large 199x300

Bennett & Belfort, P.C. partner, David E. Belfort, recently published an article in the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Lawyer’s Journal entitled “The Value of Disconnecting.” 

image002 300x101

 The piece, which ran in the monthly’s March/April Section Review, focuses on the importance of uninterrupted vacations and down time in the age of boundless smart-phone technology and a seemingly endless stream of professional emails.  Mr. Belfort discusses findings by Human Resource professionals indicating that time away from work is an essential component in the promotion of worker productivity – and he suggests the same principles apply to attorneys.  

image004 300x231

Mr. Belfort goes on to share some of his workplace strategies to allow for proper, relaxing breaks while away from the office in suggesting that we all ‘work’ to make time away from the office an authentic “break.” 

B&B Attorneys Prevail in Wrongful Termination Case

Posted on: April 15th, 2016 by admin

 

wwa Mike

wwa Andy 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partner, Michael L. Mason  and Associate Andrew S. McIlvaine recently secured an arbitration award of over $150,000 for a client who was wrongfully terminated without cause.  Our client was a financial adviser whose employment contract stated that he could only be terminated “for cause.”  His employer terminated him three years into his five-year contract, claiming he creating a hostile environment for a colleague.  However, after a six-day proceeding, the Arbitrator found that it was our client’s colleague – not our client – who created the hostile environment.  Indeed, the arbitrator concluded that the employer unfairly placed blame on our client in order to support its argument that there was “cause” to terminate him.  The Arbitrator also dismissed the employer’s claims that our client violated the employment agreement, finding instead that the employer breached the contract and was liable for our client’s lost wages.  Congratulations attorneys Mason and McIlvaine for this successful result.

images

 

C:\Users\Intake\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip image001

 

Attorney Belfort Presents at Two MCLE Employment Law Seminars

Posted on: February 29th, 2016 by admin

 

 

2013 David B photo large

 

On February 11, 2016, Bennett & Belfort P.C. partner David E. Belfort again chaired and presented at a seminar entitled “Proving & Valuing Damages in Employment Cases” at Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education’s (MCLE) Boston conference center. Joining Attorney Belfort on the panel were his respected colleagues Attorneys Robert S. Mantell, Esq. of Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz LLP, Mary E. O’Neal, Esq. of Conn Kavanaugh Rosenthal Peisch & Ford LLP and Honorable Kenneth W. Salinger of the Superior Court, Business Litigation Session.  Mr. Belfort moderated the panel and presented on how to effectively introduce damages evidence in a failure to pay wages case, proving emotional distress damages in discrimination cases and the efficacy of spousal testimony in proving emotional injury.

MCLE BLOG

On February 25, 2016 Mr. Belfort served as an invited panelist for an MCLE seminar entitled “Top 25 Critical Cases Every Employment Litigator & Counselor Must Know.”  Mr. Belfort’s colleague Nina J. Kimball, Esquire of Kimball Brousseau LLP chaired the seminar and Jaclyn L. Kugell, Esquire of Morgan, Brown & Joy served as a fellow panelist.

The panelists reviewed 25 key cases in Massachusetts employment law and highlighted issues central to effective employment litigation in the Commonwealth, including a detailed discussion of foundational and developing case law in the field.  Attorney Belfort was charged with discussing cases relating to discrimination damages, associational discrimination and wage and hour disputes in addition the fiduciary duty issues and developments in the rights of shareholder – employees in closely held corporations.  There was a rigorous discussion as to a number of other relevant topics, including: proving liability in discrimination cases; retaliation and whistleblower protections; the continuing violation doctrine and Cat’s Paw Theory; and disability and reasonable accommodation law.

Here is a list, by general topic, of the top 25 (really 27) Massachusetts cases that were discussed at the Seminar:

Basic Protected-Class Discrimination Law

1.         Lipchitz v. Raytheon Co., 434 Mass. 493 (2001)

2.         College-Town Div. of Interco v. MCAD, 400 Mass. 156 (1987)

3.         Thomas O’Connor Constructors, Inc. v. MCAD, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 549 (2008)

4.         Mole v. Univ. of Massachusetts, 442 Mass. 582 (2004)

5.         Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697 (2011)

6.         GTE Products Corp. v. Stewart, 421 Mass. 22 (1995)

7.         Sarni Original Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cooke, 388 Mass. 611 (1983)

8.         Haddad v. Wal-Mart, 455 Mass. 91 (2009)

9.         Stonehill Coll. v. MCAD, 441 Mass. 549 (2004)

10.        Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. MCAD, 375 Mass. 160 (1978)

11.        Flagg v. AliMed, Inc., 466 Mass. 23 (2013)

 

Disability Accommodation, Interactive Dialogue, and Leaves of Absence

12.        Russell v. Cooley Dickinson Hosp., Inc., 437 Mass. 443

(2002)

 

Harassment

[2.]          College-Town Div. of Interco v. MCAD, 400 Mass. 156 (1987)

13.        Muzzy v. Cahillane Motors, Inc., 434 Mass. 409 (2001)

14.        Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521 (2001)

 

Defenses

15.           Dziamba v. Warner & Stackpole LLP, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 397 (2002)

16.           Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr, 454 Mass. 390 (2009)

17.           City of Boston v. MCAD, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 234 (1995)

 

Wage & Hour Law

18.        Okerman v. VA Software, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 771 (2007)

19.        Boston Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Boston, 435

Mass. 718 (2002)

20.        Camara v. Attorney General, 458 Mass. 756 (2011)

21.        Smith v. Winter Place LLP, 447 Mass. 363 (2006)

22.        Crocker v. Townsend Oil Co., 464 Mass. 1 (2012)

23.        Lipsitt v. Plaud, 466 Mass. 240 (2013)

 

Common Law Claims

24.        Awuah v. Coverall, 460 Mass. 484 (2011)

25.        Hobson v. McLean Hosp. Corp., 402 Mass. 413 (1988)

26.        Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 373 Mass. 96 (1977)

27.        Selmark Assoc. v. Ehrlich, 467 Mass. 525 (2014)

Attorney Belfort Chairs Massachusetts Bar Association Legislative Roundtable on Employment related bills with Three Massachusetts State Legislators

Posted on: December 22nd, 2015 by admin

Bennett & Belfort, P.C. partner, David E. Belfort , co-chaired, along with Margaret Paget and John Tocci a November 24, 2015 round table discussion at the  Massachusetts Bar Association entitled “Legislative Updates on Employment Law with State Legislators” .

2013 David B photo

The legislative panelists included Rep. John Scibak, Chairman, Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, Sen. Michael J. Barrett, Vice Chair, Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce  Development and Rep. Kenneth I. Gordon, Vice Chair, Joint Committee on Election Laws and primary sponsor of H1718 .  

kgordonmbarrettjscibak

 

 

 

The panelists engaged in a lively discussion in a packed room, providing helpful insights into the legislative process and their views on the likelihood that various pending employment legislation would become law.

David 11.24.15 Panel

The panelists addressed the following bills:

  •  H1769 – The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
  •  H1718 – An Act Establishing Family and Medical Leave and Temporary Disability Insurance
  •  H1771 – An Act Addressing Workplace Bullying and Harassment
  •  H786  –  the Mental Health Parity Bill, and
  •  H1757 – An Act addressing Non-discrimination Training in the Workplace
  •  S1024 – An Act to establish a living wage for employees of big box retail stores and fast food chains.
  •  Various Minimum Wage initiates.

Bennett & Belfort Prevails on Summary Judgment in Federal Age Bias Ruling

Posted on: November 27th, 2015 by admin

In a published opinion by Massachusetts United States District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns, Bennett & Belfort partner Eric LeBlanc successfully defeated Defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims of age discrimination under M.G.L.c. 151B and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

wwa Eric

In Seifaee, the 61-year-old Plaintiff was terminated as part of a reduction in force, along with 13 other employees – all over the age of 55Seifaee v. Areva, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152356 (D. Mass. Nov. 10, 2015).  Plaintiff brought federal and state law claims alleging discrimination based on disparate treatment and disparate impact as a result of his age, as well as claims of unlawful interference arising from Defendant’s alleged misconduct.

In denying Defendant’s motion, the Court indicated that the age related statistical evidence presented by Plaintiff may well be sufficient by itself to permit a finding in plaintiff’s favor. In relevant part, the Court stated:

“At the end of the day, however, the mere fact alone that a supposedly objective process could look across a company at 136 employees and happen by chance to select an entire cohort of persons aged 55 or older for termination, while possible, seems statistically improbable (as Seifaee’s expert contends) and that alone might justify a verdict in Seifaee’s favor…The credibility of Seifaee’s statistical evidence is a question for the jury.” Id. at 13-12.

Further, the Court found that the age-related disparate impact claims are actionable under M.G.L.c. 151B, despite earlier First Circuit case law that brought this into question.  Specifically, the Court acknowledged that Mullin v. Raytheon Co., 154 F.3d 696 (1st Cir. 1999) no longer controls, stating “[i]n Mullin, the First Circuit offered the prediction that ‘the SJC likely will look to [its and other] federal courts’ interpretation of the ADEA and hold that an age discrimination claim cannot be grounded solely on a theory of disparate impact.’ It turned out that the First Circuit was wrong in its fundamental premise…As the Massachusetts Appeals Court has since followed Smith’s lead (citations omitted), I have no reason to believe that the SJC would do differently.” Id. at 13.

This case will now proceed to a jury trial.

Congratulations to Dr. Seifaee and Mr. LeBlanc for this excellent result.

District Massachusetts1

B&B Attorneys Secure Win in Federal Court Jury Trial Involving Pizza Delivery Tips

Posted on: November 20th, 2015 by admin

On October 23, 2015, B&B partners, Eric LeBlanc and Todd Bennett, obtained a favorable jury verdict for their client in the United States Federal District Court in Boston.  Mr. Bennett and Mr. LeBlanc represented PMLRA Pizza, Inc. (“PMLRA”), a franchisee of Domino’s Pizza, and Henry Askew (individually), the President of PMLRA Pizza, Inc.

At issue in the case, was:

a)      Whether or not delivery charges are “Service Charges” under the Massachusetts Tips Act,

and

b)   Whether a reasonable customer would be aware that a delivery charge was not a gratuity.

The case was brought by a former PMLRA food delivery driver, seeking compensation under the Massachusetts Tips Act and the Massachusetts minimum wage statute.

As to the issue of whether delivery charges were “service charges” under the Tips Act, PMLRA argued that the evidence showed that that these charges were not service charges under the law but, instead were used to address rising operational costs, versus payment for the actual service of delivery.

The case was tried over the course of one week before Hon. Judge William G. Young, and the jury returned its verdict in favor of PMLRA.

Congratulations to Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Bennett for a hard fought federal court trial victory.

 

Pizza

Four Bennett & Belfort P.C. Attorneys Selected 2015 Super Lawyers

Posted on: October 30th, 2015 by admin

SuperLawyers

We are proud to announce that Thomas Reuters / Super Lawyers has again listed Bennett & Belfort P.C. partners Todd J. Bennett, David E. Belfort, Michael L. Mason (Rising Star) and Eric R. LeBlanc (Rising Star) among the 2015 New England Super Lawyers.

Mr. Bennett and Mr. Belfort were selected “Top 100 Lawyers in New England” for a second consecutive year. Attorney Bennett has been named a Super Lawyer for the past five years in the area of Business Litigation while Mr. Belfort has been selected a top Lawyer in the area of Employment Litigation: Plaintiff for the last decade. Mr. Mason and Mr. LeBlanc are once again Rising Stars in the areas of Employment and Labor and Business Litigation, respectively.

Super Lawyers rates lawyers in more than 70 practice areas. They evaluate attorneys who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. While up to 5 percent of the lawyers in a state are named to Super Lawyers, no more than 2.5 percent are named to Rising Stars.

Bennett & Belfort P.C. concentrates its practice in business and commercial litigation and employment law and litigation.

Bennett & Belfort Volunteers at Rosie’s Place

Posted on: August 19th, 2015 by admin

Rosies Place BB Team 300x225On August 18, 2015 Bennett & Belfort attorneys and staff sponsored, prepared and served lunch to about 180 women at Rosie’s Place, a sanctuary for poor and homeless women in Boston’s South End.

 

Attorney LeBlanc Advises Employers on Best Practices for Dismissing Underperforming Employees

Posted on: July 1st, 2015 by admin

Cubicles 300x199Bennett & Belfort P.C. partner, Eric R. LeBlanc, was featured in an article for IE3 Global, entitled “Dismissing Underperforming Employees:  Tips and Potential Pitfalls.”  Audrey Henderson, who authored the publication, interviewed Attorney LeBlanc regarding proactive safeguards business owners can establish in order to minimize potential lawsuits by terminated employees.

When employers effectively communicate with their employees and treat them fairly, the chances of a terminated employee taking adverse legal action are considerably diminished.  Having represented both employers and employees, Attorney LeBlanc understands the value of effective communication between employers and employees, as well as the notion that employees who perceive that they have been treated fairly are less likely to sue their former employers.As outlined in the article, “Employers should be proactive in the treatment of employees prior to termination versus reactive in dealing with underperforming workers.”

The article can be accessed through the IE3 website (http://www.ie3media.com/dismissing-underperforming-employees-tips-potential-pitfalls/).

Attorneys Belfort and Amundson Present at Hobart and William Smith Colleges Networking Event

Posted on: June 26th, 2015 by admin

HWS Dave Sarah 150x150On June 17, 2015, Bennett & Belfort partner, David E. Belfort and associate, Sarah E. Amundson, co-lectured a presentation entitled “Employment Law:  Primer and Pitfalls” for their alma mater Hobart and William Smith Colleges‘ Professional Networking Group. The discussion constituted a broad introduction to Massachusetts employment law and covered topics such as at-will employment, employee privacy, and the Wage Act.  The event was held at the offices of Moors & Cabot at 200 Devonshire Street, Boston. 

HWS 300x33