Litigation

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed regulation that would completely prohibit non-competition agreements in the workplace.  A non-compete clause is a contractual term between an employer and worker that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting certain employment, or operating certain businesses, after the worker’s employment ends.  Previously, the FTC issued a statement in November 2022 in which it declared its intention to exercise authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act which would be in line with President Biden’s Executive Order from July 2021 urging the FTC to promulgate new rules governing non-competes.  If this were to happen, the consequences for both employers and employees would be significant.

With certain exceptions, the proposed rule would make it illegal to (1) enter into or attempt to enter into a noncompete with a worker, (2) maintain a noncompete with a worker, and (3) represent to a worker that the worker is subject to a noncompete agreement.
Read more . . .

Even if you are a fan of actress Ana de Armas, it is probably a safe bet to say you are not as big a fan as the two fans of the Blonde, Knives Out, and No Time to Die actress who sued Universal for false advertising when Ana de Armas did not appear in the 2019 film Yesterday despite appearing in the movie’s trailer.  On December 20^, 2023, a California judge allowed parts of a lawsuit accusing Universal of false advertising to proceed, ruling that a movie trailer "constitutes commercial speech" and is not entitled to broad protection under the First Amendment.

 

As background, in 2019, Universal released a trailer for its romantic comedy Yesterday, a film that involved a musician waking up one morning to discover no one had ever heard of The Beatles.  He becomes rich and famous by introducing the music of The Beatles into the world and claiming to be its own.  He, of course, has a love interest in the film, but the trailer also showed actress Ana de Armas playing a character who would complicate that relationship.
Read more . . .

Not all personal injury claims are created equal and sometimes an accident really just is an accident.  This lesson was just learned by a Plaintiff in Middlesex Superior Court after a four-day trial resulted in a defense verdict and no recovery for the Plaintiff.  The claim involved an injury to a seven year old girl who suffered a fall at a school playground.

In the matter of Ozkan v. City of Malden, seven year old Nihal Ozkan was a student at the Linden Steam Academy in Malden, Massachusetts.
Read more . . .

While we typically think of car accidents and slip and falls as the stereotypical personal injury cases, there are actually quite a few other types of situations that lead to personal injury cases.  One such type of personal injury case involves physical assault caused by an intoxicated person.  Many times, liability will extend beyond the actual individual responsible for another’s injuries to the person or establishment who served the liquor.  Massachusetts and many other states have enacted a “Dram Shop law” in an effort to deal with these types of cases.

Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 138 § 69, someone suffering from physical injury, property damage, or other damage may sue the licensed liquor provider who served an intoxicated person.
Read more . . .

For a long time in the legal world, there has been a bias that juries in certain counties in Massachusetts will not award verdicts of higher amounts.  Several of these counties are located in the South Coast and Cape Cod area.  Insurance companies and defense counsel have used this bias (which, to be fair, is sometimes a reality) in making unreasonable settlement offers to personal injury plaintiffs.  A jury in Plymouth Superior Court recently made a big statement that these counties may be willing to award the big verdict by awarding a trip and fall victim in Plymouth County a verdict of $1,437,314.00.
Read more . . .

Massachusetts allows personal injury cases to move forward if there is an “obvious causal relationship” between the injury claimed and the accident that forms the basis of the claim.  However, a recent case was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge who ruled that a premises liability plaintiff could not rely on Massachusetts’ “obvious causal relationship” exception to avoid having to introduce expert medical testimony rebutting a defense expert’s opinion that her torn rotator cuff was due to a fall that occurred eight months before she slipped and fell at the defendant’s store.

In this particular case, the Plaintiff slipped and fell in the restroom of a Costco store.
Read more . . .

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 . . .

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 . . .

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 . . .

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 . . .