The Law Offices of Samuel S. Reidy Blog

If an employer does not provide an employee leaving the company with his or her wage payments on time but quickly corrects the problem, that is the end of the issue, correct?  Not so fast, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held.  Even if the employer fails to make timely wage payments to a departing employee by mistake, the employer will be on the hook for automatic treble damages.  The SJC’s recent ruling and clarification of the Massachusetts Wage Act is essential information for all employers in Massachusetts to be fully informed about before failure to comply with the Act becomes a very costly mistake.

Massachusetts General Law c.149 § 148 states that "any employee leaving his employment shall be paid in full on the following regular pay day, and, in the absence of a regular pay day, on the following Saturday; and any employee discharged from such employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge.
Read more . . .

You’ve fulfilled your estate planning responsibility and have a well-drafted Last Will and Testament in place.  Nice job!  But what happens when there is a big life change (loss of a loved one, new marriage, birth of grandchildren, won the lottery, etc.) and you need to update or change your Will?  One option is to execute a Codicil to amend your Will.   A codicil is a legal document that acts as a supplement to your last will and testament.  In it, you can make changes to your will without having to rewrite your entire original will document.
Read more . . .

Apple recently caught up to Google and Facebook in the ever growing need to find a way to protect digital assets and accounts after an individual passes away.  Now, thanks to the new update to Apple’s iOS 15.2, you designate up to five people as Legacy Contacts who can access the data and personal information stored in your iCloud account.  Until this new feature, when a loved one or family member passed away, it was very difficult to access their digital information locked away in their iPhone or other Apple products, unless your loved one knew their passcode.  This is a great feature that Google and Facebook had already offered which can really help protect your digital assets as well as keep safe old messages, photos, videos, and other media that may hold invaluable sentimental worth to your family.

Massachusetts had more deaths on its roads in 2021 than in any year since 2009.  According to a new report from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, four hundred and eight people died on Massachusetts road last year, including drivers, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians.  This death total is nineteen percent higher than the 2020 total of 343 fatalities.

There are many explanations for this increase in fatalities.  Beginning in April of 2020, there was an increase of reckless driving and speeding which was explained by the Covid-19 pandemic emptying roadways which used to home congested streets.
Read more . . .

On October 6, 2021, Charlie Braun was killed when he was struck by a car while riding his bicycle in Northampton, Massachusetts.  The driver that hit and killed Charlie Braun is facing charges of negligent motor vehicle homicide, failing to stop for a stop sign, and FaceTiming while driving.  As a result, there has been a new push to further reduce distracted driving in Massachusetts and it involves strengthening the state's current hands-free driving law and closing an existing loophole regarding broadcasting video content while driving.

The state's hands-free law, which went into effect in February 2020, already prohibits drivers from holding their phones while operating their vehicles, but, in a bit of a loophole, it does not prohibit operates from filming while driving.  More specifically, while the Massachusetts law bans drivers from viewing video displayed on a mobile electronic device, it does not ban drivers from recording or broadcasting video of themselves while driving, using apps like FaceTime or Zoom.
Read more . . .

First and foremost, Happy Thanksgiving! 

An interesting employment law tidbit is that both Massachusetts and Rhode Island stand outside the norm for the country by requiring private companies to give workers paid time off for national holidays.  You may have recently heard that certain retailers have announced that its stores will be closed on Thanksgiving for the future.  While part of that decision is certainly as a good will gesture to its employees, it is also a savvy business decision as retail employers cannot force its employees to work on legal holidays and, if they do, retail employers often have to provide “premium pay” which would cost the company an increased expense if they chose to be open. 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognizes eleven holidays as a legal holiday (Suffolk County includes a few extra such as Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill Day).  Each holiday has its own rules and restrictions set on what industries are allowed to be open, what times they may be open, and how much they need to pay their employees.
Read more . . .

Last week, a Federal Judge in Boston denied the motion of two hundred and twenty-nine Massachusetts General Brigham employees who sought an injunction to prevent the company from enforcing its vaccine mandate.  Prior to that, the Court ruled against a group of Massachusetts correction officers who similarly asked for an injunction on the vaccination mandate.  Putting aside the hot button question as to whether or not employers should be able to mandate vaccinations for its employees (of which there are strong arguments both for and against), the reality is that a large number of employees in Massachusetts are going to be facing a decision that they do not want to have to make: get the vaccine or lose their job.

Massachusetts General Brigham employees approximately 77,000 people across its hospital network, so the two hundred and twenty-nine employees that joined in the Court case to try and block the mandate represents a very small fraction of its total workforce.  In fact, Massachusetts General Brigham estimates that over ninety-five percent of its employee base has been at least partially vaccinated.
Read more . . .

Statistics show that couples are waiting longer and longer to get married.  In addition, there are many alternatives to marriage, such as domestic partnerships, that are becoming more normalized.  It is important for these couples to understand that there may be a stronger need for estate planning then there is for married couples.  Without proper estate planning, unmarried couples will not inherit or be able to make critical decisions for their significant other.

There are two general purposes to estate planning.
Read more . . .

Recently a colleague asked me what the law required when an emergency vehicle is traveling on the same road but in the opposite direction.  He was not sure if he had an obligation to pull over to the right if the emergency vehicle had an unobstructed path forward in its lane of travel.  The law does require drivers in the opposite lane of travel to pull over as far to the right as is safely possible even if the emergency vehicle has a clear path forward in the opposite travel lane.  Failure to do so can lead to a fine, jail time, loss of license, and have a significant repercussions on a possible automobile accident claim.

The important law to be aware of is Massachusetts General Law chapter 89 § 7 and §7A.

Emily Misiaszek and her husband created an irrevocable trust during their lifetime, the corpus of which included their home.  The terms of the Irrevocable Trust granted the Misiaszeks the right, during their lifetime, a limited power of appointment to appoint all or any portion of the trust principal to a nonprofit or charitable organization over which they have no controlling interest.  When Ms. Misiaszek applied for MassHealth long-term care benefits, she was denied on the basis that the home was a countable asset.  The Massachusetts Office of Medicaid’s Board of Hearings affirmed MassHealth’s decision, but a Superior Court judge reversed the board’s ineligibility determination.
Read more . . .

One of the most powerful clauses in a will or a trust is the in terrorem clause, which is more commonly referred to as a “no-contest” clause.  In terrorem means “in fear” in Latin and is an appropriate name for the clause as if someone challenges a will or a trust with an in terrorem clause and the challenge is not successful, there can be dire consequences for the challenger.  Namely, a challenger to a will or trust with an in terrorem clause risks losing all of his or her rights and interest under a will or trust.

Almost a year ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled in the matter of Capobianco v. Dischino, Mass.
Read more . . .