Royal

Issue Preclusion in Federal Action

August 16, 2023

Where a plaintiff brought suit alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the minimum wage law, it was premature for the complaint to be dismissed despite the defendants’ argument that principles of issue preclusion foreclosed the plaintiff’s claim that he was an employee of Montachusetts Regional Transit Authority.



In July 2021, the plaintiff, Paul Jones, brought this action in the Superior Court alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, and the minimum wage law, G.L.c. 151 (wage statutes), by Montachusetts Regional Transit Authority, as his employer, and the individual defendants, as the employer’s ‘agents’ (collectively, MART). The plaintiff alleged that MART misclassified him as an independent contractor when he was actually MART’s employee, and by doing so, deprived him of certain financial benefits. MART moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint arguing, inter alia, that principles of issue preclusion foreclosed the plaintiff’s claim that he was MART’s employee. Because we conclude that the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was premature, we vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings.


In May 2019, the plaintiff filed an action against MART in Federal court alleging, inter alia, employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and G.L.c. 151B, §4 (Federal action). In July 2021, MART moved for summary judgment in the Federal action on the employment discrimination claims on the basis that the plaintiff was not its employee. A Federal judge agreed and granted MART’s motion.


MART’s issue preclusion argument relies on the Federal judge’s determination that for the purposes of both Title VII and G.L.c. 151B, MART established on summary judgment that it was not the plaintiff’s employer. While the court acknowledged that the plaintiff’s employment status with respect to MART was, as MART argues, an element of both the plaintiff’s Federal court claim and his claims in the Superior Court action at issue in this appeal, the court concluded that issue preclusion was not a proper basis on which to dismiss the plaintiff’s Superior Court claims.


Because the plaintiff’s burden was higher in the Federal action, and the burden shifted to MART in the later Superior Court action, application of issue preclusion was erroneous.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. 

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: