Royal

Massachusetts Judiciary Opens New Door to Challenge At-Will Employment

January 4, 2022

As employers know, in Massachusetts, an employer is required by law to notify an employee if the employer either modifies or adds information to their personnel file which can negatively impact their employment circumstances. The employee may then inspect their personnel file and submit a rebuttal, explaining their position on the employer’s modifications. This rebuttal statement must be included in the employee’s personnel file whenever it is transferred to a third party. It is important to note that a rebuttal does not provide any other right or further job protections; it is simply meant to “memorialize an employee’s position.”


In a recent decision, the highest court in the Commonwealth addressed an employee rebuttal contained in a personnel file. In Meehan v. Med. Info. Tech., Inc., the employer had terminated an employee based solely upon the contents of the rebuttal in the employee’s personnel file. The Court ruled that an employer may not terminate an employee solely for what is written in the rebuttal, no matter how “intemperate and contentious”, reasoning that accuracy in a personnel file is extremely important for both current and future employers, as it ensures employees will be fairly evaluated by new employers and employers can be properly informed in making hiring decisions.

Employers, obviously, may still terminate employees for any legal reason unrelated to the filing of a rebuttal itself, or its contents.


If you have questions about at-will employment, 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: