Construction suppliers are often put at risk when they provide materials on credit to contractors that abandon or are terminated from the projects to which the materials were supplied. This is especially true when the contractors in question are sole proprietors or limited liability companies operating as pass-through entities for their owner(s) that cannot overcome the […]
Category: Law Blog
Belfor USA Group Inc. v. Porter Stoughton District Court C.A. 2017CV75 In this District Court matter, our office represented the plaintiff contractor, which had performed emergency restoration services at the defendant’s home pursuant to an express written contract with the defendant. The defendant’s counterclaims for consequential damages resulting from delay on the project were dismissed prior to trial. After a […]
After several years of stalled attempts, the Massachusetts Legislature has passed a comprehensive though largely self-defeating bill regulating the use of non-competition agreements. The bill, which was appended to a larger economic development package signed by Governor Baker on August 10, 2018, will become effective to all non-competes executed on or after October 1, 2018, and […]
In order to be enforced by a court in Massachusetts, agreements to restrict an employee’s future employment, i.e. “non-competition” agreements, must be (1) necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer, (2) reasonable in time and scope, (3) bargained for between the parties and (4) consistent with the public interest. A recent ruling from […]
Massachusetts Independent Contractor (IC) Advisory: Client Control May Nullify Independent Contractor Massachusetts business owners who wish to utilize independent contractors should be mindful of the amount of control exercised over these workers by clients of the business, as it is now clear that such control can be imparted to the employing unit for the purposes […]
H.J. Centola & Sons and Joseph Centola advs Anthony Catlin Aggressively responded to homeowner’s 93A claims and successfully demonstrated that homeowner’s claims for improper work were not only without merit, but were time barred. Successfully proved that action could not be pursued against the corporate principal individually when homeowner’s contract was solely with the corporation.
In an important decision for employers, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination recently clarified the scope and purpose of its anti-retaliation statute, and awarded damages to an employee who was terminated for submitting an internal complaint of sexual harassment directed by one of her co-workers towards another co-worker.
In Boston Scientific Corp. v. Lee, the United States District Court in Massachusetts provided several considerations that weigh against restricting an employee’s right to work for competitors solely because the terms of a confidentiality or “non-disclosure” agreement have been breached.
Employers of all sizes should understand the difference between direct and indirect claims for employment discrimination.
Unlike a Superior or District Court jury trial, there is usually no right to automatic appeal of mandatory arbitration decisions.