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. 

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: