Employment Law

The Employment Law Group at Prince Lobel Glovsky & Tye gets results. The Group’s ability to identify and resolve issues before they become problems is renowned.  If a problem develops into litigation, our employment lawyers litigate with great success, representing a broad array of employers in state and federal courts and before government agencies. We also train employers to limit risk by devising and implementing sound employment practices.

The firm’s Employment Law Practice Group offers a broad range of employment law services including:

• Drafting employment contracts and severance agreements
• Preparing employment policies and manuals
• Counseling with respect to critical employment decisions, such as terminations and disciplinary actions
• Defending employers against discrimination, whistleblower, and defamation claims
• Advising about and litigating non-competition, confidentiality, and trade secret issues 
• Providing policy advice with regard to the use of e-mail, Internet, and personal blogs
• Considering and pursuing alternative dispute resolutions
• Ensuring compliance with federal legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act
• Providing advice with respect to plant closings and workforce reductions
• Counseling regarding drug, alcohol and psychological testing

Publications

January 2010 - NLRA Continues to Pack a Punch: $41 Million Back Pay Settlement Finalized

December 2009 - Warning to Massachusetts Employers: A Single Racial Slur Can Create a Hostile Work Environment

November 2009 - New FMLA Provisions For Military Families: Companies Must Modify Their Policies To Comply

November 2009 - Proposed New ADA Regulations Present Challenges For Employers: Threshold Lowered For Determining Disability Status

October 2009 - Court Denies Massachusetts Employers " Safe Harbor" for Misclassified Workers

October 2009 - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Limits Punitive Damages For Employment Discrimination

October 2009 - Stupid Human Tricks: Top Five Lessons From the David Letterman Scandal

July 2009 - Important Update for Smaller Massachusetts Employers: Mini-COBRA Amendment Requires New Notice Period

July 2009 - Supreme Court Decision Creates Conundrum 

May 2009 - H1N1 (Swine Flu) Update: Creating a Contingency Plan For Your Business 

May 2009 - H1N1 Flu: What To Do From a Legal Perspective

April 2009 - On the Horizon: New Unions in the Workplace

March 2009 - Important Changes to COBRA Regulations

January 2009 - Arbitration Agreements Take a Hit

January 2009 - Supreme Court Expands Reach of Anti-Retaliation Protections

December 2008 - Employment Manuals: A More Slippery Slope

November 2008 - Deadlines for Compliance with Massachusetts’ New Privacy Regulations Extended

November 2008 - All Employers Must Comply with New Identity Theft Precautions

October 2008 - Massachusetts Appeals Court Rules Newspaper Carrier is an Employee

October 2008 - Significant Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act

April 2008 -  Treble Damages Becomes Mandatory in Wage and House Disputes

March 2008 -  Employers Beware:  Several Recent Rulings Provide More Expansive Protections for Employees Claiming Discrimination 

February 2008 - Two Recent Decisions Provide Solace to Massachusetts Employers

January 2008 -  Looking Ahead in 2008: The Evolving Employment Legal Landscape 

December 2007 -  Prince Lobel Defeats the Odds: Six Plaintiffs Fail to Establish Gender Discrimination

August 2007 -  Recent Legislative, Judicial and Administrative Developments Bring New Challenges and Opportunities for Employers

January 2007 - Key Developments in Employment Law: Lessons of 2006, Issues for 2007

January 2007 - New Rules on ESI—The Time To Act Is Now

Representative Matters

• On July 14, 2009, Prince Lobel won a significant decision when the trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of our client, a day care center for the children of hospital employees.  The decision is meaningful for employers as it confirms that a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is a very narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine and does not constitute a catch-all cause of action.  The court found that to sustain a claim of that type, an employee must identify a "clearly defined" public policy articulated by the legislature.
• Prince Lobel attorneys defended their client and ten male supervisors against claims by six female former employees, each of whom claimed that she was subjected to gender discrimination and retaliation. Among their claims, the women contended that they received inferior equipment and were subjected to greater discipline than male bus drivers who worked for the company. The plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages against the company, in addition to attorney fees and costs.  Prince Lobel's attorneys proved that, with the right facts, juries can get beyond first impressions created by "me too" evidence.  After a five-week trial, the jury returned a take-nothing verdict in favor Prince Lobel's client and the ten male supervisors.
• A former temporary worker sued Prince Lobel's client claiming it had discriminated against him based on handicap when it failed to hire him for a series of full-time job openings. The plaintiff also asserted client retaliation. We were able to achieve summary judgment in Massachusetts Superior Court showing that the there was no discrimination in the hiring process, and that the plaintiff’s employment was terminated due to the employer’s legitimate concerns about his conduct on the job.
• Prince Lobel represented a start-up technology company and the members of its Board of Directors in a case brought by its founder alleging that the company had engaged in age discrimination when it terminated his employment at age 79 in a layoff. Through an exhaustive presentation of the facts to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination at the pre-hearing stage, we were able to get all of the claims dismissed. 
• A former employee of a high-tech company filed a complaint under USERRA asserting that Polaroid had failed to honor its obligation to re-hire him after his tour of duty ended. Prince Lobel was able to successfully resolve the case for nuisance value by persuading the Department of Labor that the employee’s claim was likely time-barred and negated by the reduction in force. 
• In a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals whose health and welfare benefits were terminated prior to the sale of a Fortune 1000 company, Prince Lobel's employment litigators persuaded the United States District Court to transfer proceedings to the District of Delaware resulting in the dismissal of the action and avoidance of exposure which could have exceeded $25,000,000. 
• In a particularly difficult sexual harassment case wherein the individual plaintiff accused Prince Lobel's multi media-based client of sexual harassment due to the alleged gross behavior of the client’s on-air personalities, the firm's efforts enabled the client to resolve the matter after minimal litigation and at less than 5% of the plaintiff’s settlement demand. 
• When an international vice president responsible for sales left the client’s employ to work for one of its chief competitors, Prince Lobel successfully prevented the former employee from competing with the client for the duration of the employee’s non-compete agreement by obtaining court orders restricting the scope of the employee’s employment in his new position. 
• A partner in a large regional accounting firm was discovered to have engaged in a personal relationship with an associate of the firm. Prince Lobel's employment lawyers succeeded in developing a strategy resulting in the adoption of a non-fraternization policy and the voluntary termination of the partner.