Category Archives: News

Show Me the (Same Amount of) Money!

By on June 21, 2018

The state’s new pay equity law, which amends the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (“MEPA”), will take effect on July 1, 2018.  It is one of the strongest pay equity laws in the country, and subjects employers to double damages and attorneys’ fees in the event of a violation.  Moreover, it is a “strict liability” statute.  Thus, whether or not an employer intends to discriminate against employees of one gender is “irrelevant” to the analysis.

The amendments prohibit employers from, among other things:

• Paying different wages to people of different genders who perform “comparable work,” unless the difference in salary is attributable to one (or more) of six enumerated statutory factors;

• Asking job applicants about their wage or salary history;

• Decreasing the wages of an employee solely to close the wage gap;

• Retaliating against employees for exercising their rights under MEPA.

The revisions also establish a safe harbor provision for employers who perform self-evaluations of their pay practices.

What Does “Comparable Work” Mean?

MEPA defines “comparable work” as work that “requires substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibility” that is performed under similar working conditions.  Employers should not assume that a job title, or even a job description, necessarily determines comparability.  In fact, employees need not even be in the same business unit or department in order have “comparable” jobs.  Notably, this is a broader definition than the “equal work” standard under federal law.

Even if employees are in comparable roles, however, employers are permitted to pay them different salaries if the difference is based on of one (or more) of the following factors:

• A seniority system (as long as seniority is not affected by pregnancy, parental or family leave);
• A merit system;
• A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, sales, or revenue;
• The geographic location in which a job is performed;
• Education, training, or experience, as long as these factors are reasonably related to the job in question; and
• Travel that is a regular and necessary part of the job.

What Employers Should Know About the Safe Harbor Provision

In order to trigger the safe harbor provision, which establishes an affirmative defense against liability for claims of pay discrimination, an employer must have conducted a “reasonable and good faith” pay audit within the previous three years (and before an employee files an action), and must demonstrate that it is making “reasonable progress” towards eliminating wage differentials across genders.

Self-evaluations not only help employers identify and rectify wage gaps, they guard against liquidated damages in the event of a judgment against the employer, even if the evaluation was not “reasonable” in detail and scope.

Guidance for Employers

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office has issued a Guidance that addresses the amendments.  While the Guidance does not have legal force, it is a useful compliance tool and a good place to start if you have basic questions about how to ensure you are compensating your employees equally across genders for “comparable work.”  However, employers should bear in mind that “the complexity of the analysis required will vary significantly depending on the size, make-up, and resources of each employer”; the Guidance does not, and cannot, address the many fact-specific situations that may arise at any given place of employment.

In addition to the Guidance, the AG’s Office has generated a “Pay Calculation Tool” to help employers identify and evaluate gender-based pay gaps.  Smaller employers with clearly defined groupings of comparable jobs and relatively simply pay structures may benefit from using the tool, at least as a first step; it is not appropriate for large pay groups or complicated pay structures.  Furthermore, the data the tool generates may be discoverable in litigation or government investigations, so employers should consult with counsel before conducting any self-evaluation.

Chris Strang Selected Super Lawyer for 2018

By on June 1, 2018

Strang, Scott, Giroux & Young, LLP, is honored to announce the selection of Christopher Strang as a 2018 Super Lawyer by the Massachusetts edition of Super Lawyers.  Mr. Strang has been recognized for his outstanding work in construction litigation for the tenth consecutive year, first as a Rising Star and then as a Super Lawyer.  The Super Lawyers selection team chooses only 5% of eligible attorneys as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5% of eligible attorneys as Rising Stars. Both lists are the result of a process that includes a statewide lawyer survey, independent research, and peer reviews.

Strang Scott Welcomes Alexandra Deal to the Firm

By on May 1, 2018

Strang, Scott, Giroux & Young, LLP, with offices in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, welcomes Alexandra H. Deal as Of Counsel to the Firm. 

Ms. Deal is a seasoned litigator with more than a decade of experience representing clients in state and federal court, along with various administrative agencies.  She advises clients in employment-related matters and litigates employment-related disputes, including cases involving alleged discrimination, wage and hour violations, restrictive covenants, harassment and other employment matters.  She is a trained workplace investigator, and has conducted numerous internal investigations involving allegations of discrimination and other unlawful conduct.

Ms. Deal is an accomplished appellate attorney, having briefed, argued, and won cases at the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Prior to joining Strang, Scott, Giroux & Young, LLP, Ms. Deal maintained a successful solo practice for a number of years.  She graduated cum laude from Boston College Law School and clerked for a judge at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals before entering private practice.

The Firm looks forward to utilizing Ms. Deal’s knowledge and experience in employment matters to the benefit of its clients.  You can contact Ms. Deal directly at adeal@www.strangscott.com or by telephone at (857) 233-5534.

Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Takes Effect

By on April 25, 2018

As of April 1, 2018, all Massachusetts employers with six (6) or more employees are subject to the state’s new Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (the “Act”).

In light of the pre-existing federal law in this area, what is most notable about the Act is that it requires covered employers to provide:

• non-exempt and exempt employees with reasonable breaks and an appropriately private place to express breast milk;
• written notice to their employees regarding the rights provided under the Act; and
• reasonable accommodation(s) to employees on the basis of pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions.

Reasonable accommodations may include thing like frequent or longer breaks, light duty, or a modified work schedule.

It is unlawful to retaliate against employees for requesting such an accommodation. Likewise, employers cannot deny an employment opportunity to an employee if the denial is based on the employer’s knowledge that it would have to provide the employee a reasonable accommodation, nor can an employer refuse to hire someone on the basis of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition, provided that person can perform the job (with a reasonable accommodation, if necessary).

Employers must provide the required written notice in a handbook, pamphlet, or other appropriate form to:

• current employees on or before the effective date of the Act;
• a newly-hired employee at the time of his or her hire; and
• any employee who notifies the employer of a pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition, within 10 days of such notice.

Employers may satisfy the written notice requirement using the two-page Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Guidance published in part for this purpose by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). The MCAD has also published a helpful Q&A regarding the Act.  Should you have questions concerning compliance with the Act or other matters, speak with an experienced employment attorney.

We’ve Moved: Strang Scott’s Boston Office Relocates to 6 Beacon Street

As of March 30, 2018, the Boston office of Strang, Scott, Giroux & Young, LLP has moved to 6 Beacon Street.  The firm’s relocation will provide ready access to Suffolk County Superior Court, the Federal Court, the Massachusetts State House and the Boston Bar Association.  We look forward to introducing our clients and friends to the new space.  Please be in touch regarding directions and parking options. 

 

For the firm’s mailing addresses, please see the firm’s Contact page.

 

 

Christopher Strang’s Article Published on the Cover of Under Construction

By on March 26, 2018

Strang Scott partner, Chris Strang, co-authored and article with Brendan Carter from the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts that was published recently on the cover of the American Bar Association’s “Under Construction” quarterly newsletter.  The article details a case where Strang Scott prevailed against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, successfully arguing that the awarding authority has a duty to ensure the validity of payment bonds provided by general contractors on public construction projects in Massachusetts.  The case was a matter of first impression in Massachusetts courts.  

Forfeiture Rule in Construction Disputes Under Review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

By on March 6, 2018

Since the early 1900’s, Massachusetts courts have held that a contractor cannot recover on the contract itself without showing complete and strict performance of all terms or, in the event the contract cannot be completed fully, that the contractor substantially performed and attempted, in good faith, to perform fully. Under this rule, if the court finds that the contractor intentionally departed from the specifications of the contract, the contractor is prohibited from recovering under the contract, forfeiting its right to contract damages. 

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) will hear arguments this week requesting the forfeiture rule in construction cases to be overturned. The appellant in G4S Technology LLC v. Mass. Tech. Park Corp., SJC-12397, appeals a prior summary judgment ruling, wherein the trial court denied the contractor’s claims for approximately $10 million in delay-and-impact damages on the basis of the forfeiture rule. Despite ultimately completing the project, it was determined that the contractor paid some of its subcontractors late and submitted false certifications. Those actions were in breach the contract, and the trial court determined that those actions were sufficient to deny the contractor’s claims.

The SJC will consider whether Massachusetts should adopt an alternative standard that considers whether a breach was an uncured, material breach that alleviates the non-breaching party’s obligation to pay and weigh a breaching party’s lack of good faith or willfulness, among other factors to be considered by the court. This multi-factor analysis is applied currently by Massachusetts courts in other contract disputes, but not in connection with construction disputes.

Should the forfeiture rule be overturned, it would have wide-reaching consequences and create greater flexibility in arguing an entitlement to damages on breach of contract claims. Contractors would be wise to keep track of this case as it proceeds. If you have questions concerning your rights in connection with a construction dispute, consult an experienced Massachusetts construction attorney.

The White House Proposes $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Development Program

By on February 12, 2018

The White House recently released its “Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America.” 

In the preamble to the outline, The White House requested that Congress act to implement the infrastructure program in short order through new legislation.  In broad strokes, the outline calls for new spending to stimulate $1.5 trillion dollars in infrastructure investments, from federal and state governments, agencies and localities, to address American infrastructure projects.

Should the program be implemented by Congress in any meaningful way, it would mean a boon for public construction projects and contractors.  Contractors would be wise to keep a careful eye on this proposed legislation as it develops.     

 

Corporate Considerations: Piercing the Corporate Veil, a Primer

By on January 23, 2018

             The creation of a formal corporate entity and compliance with state prescribed formalities can offer business owners and members substantial protections from individual liability for business debts when acting by and through an entity. That protection, however, is not a given. In order to enjoy the benefits that limited liability entities afford, one must respect established corporate formalities and comport business practices accordingly.

            Generally, corporate entities enjoy the presumption that an entity is legally separate from its individual shareholders or members, such that individual shareholders/members are not liable for an entity’s liabilities.  Certain actions by shareholders/members, however, can lead the courts to pierce that liability protection, often called the “corporate veil,” and impose individual liability for facially corporate actions.  Thus, it is imperative to understand what behavior can cause such a result.

            Shareholder/members, or even other controlling or related entities, may find themselves liable for corporate debts where it is evident that those shareholders/members, or other controlling or related entities, are using an entity for their personal objectives.  My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 233 N.E.2d 748, 751–52 (Mass. 1968). Further, in Massachusetts, piercing the corporate veil may be appropriate in instances,

(a) when there is active and direct participation by the representatives of one, apparently exercising some form of pervasive control, in the activities of another and there is some fraudulent or injurious consequence of the intercorporate relationship, or

(b) when there is a confused intermingling of activity of two or more corporations engaged a common enterprise with substantial disregard of the separate nature of the corporate entities, or serious ambiguity about the manner and capacity in which the corporations and their respective representatives are acting. Id.

            More specifically, the courts consider and weigh twelve factors when considering whether piercing the corporate veil is appropriate in any given case. Court consider whether there exists:

(1) Common ownership;

(2) Pervasive control;

(3) Confused intermingling of business activity assets, or management;

(4) Thin capitalization;

(5) Nonobservance of corporate formalities;

(6) Absence of corporate records;

(7) No payment of dividends;

(8) Insolvency at the time of the litigated transaction;

(9) Siphoning away of corporate assets by the dominant shareholders;

(10) Nonfunctioning of officers and directors;

(11) Use of the corporation for transactions of the dominant shareholders; and,

(12) Use of the corporation in promoting fraud.

Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc. v. Checkers, Inc., 754 F.2d 10, 14-16 (1st Cir.1985).

           Not all factors need apply to justify the disregard of a corporate form, however, all are considered in the determination of whether or not the protections afforded by corporate formality are being abused to an extent that warrants piercing.  Thus, people conducting business by and through various formal corporate entities would be well advised to ensure that their business practices observe corporate formalities, to ensure that they retain the protective benefits such entities generally afford.  If you have questions with regard to business formation and/or operations you should consult with a knowledgeable attorney to determine your best options. 

 

Christopher Strang Selected as 2017 Super Lawyer

By on December 12, 2017

Strang Scott is honored to announce the selection of Christopher Strang as a 2017 Super Lawyer by the Massachusetts edition of Super Lawyers. Mr. Strang has been recognized for his outstanding work in construction litigation for the ninth consecutive year, first as a Rising Star and then as a Super Lawyer. The Super Lawyers selection team chooses only 5% of eligible attorneys as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5% of eligible attorneys as Rising Stars. Both lists are the result of a process that includes a statewide lawyer survey, independent research, and peer reviews.