Royal

Massachusetts Implements Fair Labor Standards Act Standard in Determining Joint Employer Status

December 15, 2021

Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) examined the issue of whether the Massachusetts independent contractor statute can also be the basis for determining whether an entity qualifies as an individuals’ joint employer.


The case, Jinks, et al. v. Credico (USA) LLC, centered around the defendant’s subcontract agreement with the plaintiff to provide regional direct sales services for its nationally based clients. The Court held the defendant was not liable, under Massachusetts wage laws, as the “joint employer” of the plaintiff. A “joint employer” is an entity that shares the control and supervision of an employee’s activity with one or more other entities. In its analysis, the SJC abandoned the Massachusetts independent contractor statute (G.L. c. 149, §148B), relying on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s “joint employer” test instead.


According to the FLSA, in determining whether an entity is a joint employer of an individual, one must consider the totality of the circumstances of the relationship between the individual and entity. In doing so, the court examines whether the entity (1) had the power to hire and fire the individual, (2) supervised and controlled the individual’s work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.


The Court found this framework to be more appropriate as Massachusetts wage laws are largely based off the FLSA. In its ruling on this case, the Court did not find that Jinks could reasonably prove Credico exercised the degree of control necessary to conclude it was a joint employer. The impact that the implementation of the FLSA test will have on future joint employer litigation remains to be seen.


If you have questions about the Fair Labor Standards Act, or any other general employment issues, 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: