Royal

Unemployment Solvency Fix passed by the MA House of Representatives

May 19, 2021

On May 18, 2021, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed legislation to address the overwhelming Unemployment Insurance bills employers received in April. The plan would reduce the solvency assessment rate from 9.23% to 1.12% by shifting COVID related claims into a new account to be paid down over a period of 20 years. Payment of the first-quarter UI bill would be pushed back to July 31st when the second-quarter bills will also be due. Employers who already paid their first-quarter bill would be given a tax credit for the difference.


The House’s plan does not use any of the federal relief money to offset the long-term deficits in State’s unemployment trust. So, while this plan is an important first step in relieving the short-term burden on employers, industry groups continue to urge the State to use federal relief funds to refill the unemployment trust, which was depleted by the COVID crisis.


The plan would also require employers to provide sick leave to employees who are sick with COVID or are getting vaccinated. The sick leave would be capped at 40 hours with a maximum benefit of $850. Employers would then be reimbursed through state funds.


After August 1st, the system will go back to charging new COVID related unemployment claims directly to employers.


The Senate will likely take up the bill later this week. 


If you have any questions about this topic or any other labor and employment law matters, please feel free 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: