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. 

Employer’s Counterclaims in Response to Suit Under Wage Act Dismissed Per Employee’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

January 15, 2025
An employer brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse-of-process in response to a Wage Act suit brought by an employee. The Appeals Court cited that the employer’s counterclaims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide parties with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them, usually in response to a lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case, an hourly laborer, claimed that his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him for four of the six weeks he worked for them. The employer refuted these allegations, stating that the employee had only worked for two weeks, that he had been paid in full and then brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The District Court judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP law. When brought to the Appeals Court, the decision was reversed; the Appeals Court stated that the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis. This ruling suggests that it might behoove an employer to pause and wait to see if a plaintiff’s Wage Act claim fails before filing a counterclaim of abuse of process or malicious prosecution in response.  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.

Compensation Plans and Contingent Compensation Pitfalls

January 8, 2025
Attorney Trevor Brice hosted a seminar on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, discussing the possible issues with current compensation plans and contingent compensation pitfalls made possible by recent court rulings. Some of the topics discussed included: Issues with current compensation plans under the FLSA Restrictive Covenants and Compensation Plans Problems with Commission-Based Compensation Plans and Possible Solutions When a Bonus is not actually a bonus and issues under the Massachusetts Wage Act This seminar was perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions on this topic!
Share by: