Royal

Top Court in Massachusetts Reaffirms “ABC” Test to Determine Independent Contractor Status

March 25, 2022

As discussed earlier, the Plaintiffs in Patel v. 7-Eleven, franchise owners of the national corporation, allege they are employees of the national corporation, rather than independent contractor owners, based upon the provisions of their franchise agreement.



Pursuant to Massachusetts law, a Court has the ability to look into the actual duties performed by a person to determine whether they are an employee or independent contractor regardless of the language contained in the contract. A court will look at issues such as control, whether the service is performed outside the usual course of business for the employer, and whether the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade. Ultimately, the determination boils down to control. If the parent corporation controls the individuals work, they are an employee. If not, they are an independent contractor.


The Supreme Judicial Court’s (“SJC”) ruling is based upon a request by the First Circuit Court of Appeals to interpret state law. The First Circuit was hearing the case because, as part of that appeal, the First Circuit asked the SJC for its opinion on whether the Massachusetts ABC test even applies to a franchisor-franchisee relationship, or, whether the case should be analyzed using the Federal standing set forth in the FTC Franchise Rule.


The SJC stated that the Massachusetts ABC test should apply, and not the FTC Franchise Rule.

As a reminder, worker misclassification can have serious financial impacts to an employer. If franchise owners are employees of the parent corporation, there could be many employment laws implicated, including the Massachusetts Wage Act, earned sick time, tax issues, unemployment insurance, and Massachusetts Paid Family Medical Leave, among other protections granted to employees under state and federal law.  Corporations should be mindful in how they classify their workers.


If you have any questions regarding worker classification, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm, LLP; (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: