Royal

U.S. District Court Rejects Efforts to Overturn OSH Case by Employer

June 22, 2023

The U.S. District Court has rejected the notion that a ruling in 2022 be overturned by the Defendants in a workplace safety case.



Where a jury found that the employer company and the supervisor (Defendants) violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) by retaliating against an employee (Plaintiff) after he suffered a workplace injury, that verdict should not be overturned despite the employer’s argument that (1) there is insufficient evidence to establish that the employee engaged in protected conduct; (2) the verdict resulted from prejudicial errors in the jury instructions; and (3) the exclusion of certain evidence relating to the employee’s arrest record was prejudicial.


On June 21, 2022, the jury found that the Defendants violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Now, the Defendants seek to overturn this verdict.


The Defendants present three reasons for overturning the jury’s verdict. First, they argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Defendants engaged in unlawful retaliation in violation of Section 11(c) of the OSH Act. … Second, the Defendants contend that the jury’s verdict resulted from prejudicial errors in the instructions the Court gave the jury. … Third, the Defendants claim that the Court’s exclusion of certain evidence relating to the Plaintiff’s arrest record was prejudicial.


The Court already explained, in a sealed decision, why it would not allow all the evidence that the Defendants sought to admit. While the Court would not allow particular details of prior arrests into evidence for a variety of reasons, it did allow general references to the Plaintiff’s arrest record.…that logic still applies. The Defendants maintain that the ‘nature of the arrests … was why law enforcement needed so badly to detain Plaintiff,’ and therefore its exclusion was prejudicial. … But the motivation behind law enforcement’s actions were not at issue at trial — the Defendants’ action was. Moreover, while the Defendants cursorily suggest that the excluded evidence was relevant to ‘why the supervisor did what he did,’ Defendants elicited no such testimony from the supervisor even when they had the opportunity to do so during trial. The supervisor was free to testify that Plaintiff’s arrest record affected his decision to facilitate Plaintiff’s May 2017 arrest. He did not.


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: