Massachusetts law gives employees the right to place a written statement in their personnel file if they disagree with information their employer has put into the file that has or may negatively affect the employee's qualification for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation or the possibility that the employee will be subject to disciplinary action. But in the recent case of Meehan v. Medical Information Technology, Inc., the Appeals Court held that an employer can fire an at-will employee simply for exercising this right.
In a case of first impression, Newton Centre Realty, Inc. v. David R. Jaffe (June 23, 2020), the Appeals Court recently decided that the seller's death terminates a real estate listing agreement and concluded that the broker was not entitled to recover contract damages from the seller's estate.
In Knous v. Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., the United States District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts awarded summary judgment to an employer on the employee's claims of unpaid wages and earned vacation at the time of discharge.
In the recent case of Suzuki v. Abiomed, Inc., the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a U.S. District Court order granting summary judgment to the defendant employer, holding that the company's termination of an employee approximately fifteen months prior to the achievement of an important milestone, which would have entitled the employee to a large equity grant, did not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his employment contract.
An employee who voluntarily quits their job is, in most circumstances, not entitled to collect unemployment benefits or sue their employer for wrongful termination. However, an employee who believes they were forced to quit their job because their working conditions were intolerable may be able to argue that they were "constructively discharged," meaning that the termination of their employment is viewed not as a resignation but as though the employee was fired. In such circumstances, an employee who might not otherwise have been able to apply for unemployment benefits or to make a claim against their employer for wrongful termination will be permitted to do so.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision last week allowing a retaliation lawsuit to proceed because the company's CEO told others that he wanted to "get rid of" an employee, even though there was no evidence that the CEO made those statements directly to the supervisor who terminated the employee, or that the CEO was in any way involved in the termination decision.
Will an alimony recipient's cohabitation with another result in the termination of alimony?