Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog

Employment disputes involving allegations of discrimination and retaliation often hinge on whether an employee’s complaint contains enough factual detail to proceed beyond the earliest stages of litigation. Federal courts regularly dismiss claims that describe uncomfortable or unfair workplace dynamics but fail to plausibly connect those experiences to unlawful conduct under governing statutes. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court illustrates the demanding nature of federal pleading standards, particularly in cases involving allegations of gender discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower-related termination. If you have questions about workplace retaliation or termination in Massachusetts, you should consider speaking with an experienced Massachusetts employment and workers’ compensation attorney to assess your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff was hired by the defendant as a senior data architect and worked remotely from Massachusetts for a company headquartered outside the state. The plaintiff was the only woman working in a technical role under her direct supervisor and was responsible for evaluating database security and compliance with federal health information privacy laws. Shortly after beginning her employment, she conducted a security audit that identified significant deficiencies and potential regulatory risks.

It is alleged that the plaintiff promptly reported the failed audit and her concerns to her supervisor and other technical leaders. According to the complaint, those individuals reacted negatively to her findings, responding with dismissiveness and hostility. The plaintiff asserted that she was subjected to ridicule and gender-based comments from male coworkers, including being labeled with derogatory terms during meetings, and that management failed to intervene or provide support. Continue reading →

Employees who suffer workplace injuries often rely on statutory systems to obtain medical care and wage replacement. When an adverse employment action follows an injury report, disputes may arise over whether the employer acted lawfully or retaliated against the employee for exercising protected rights. A recent decision from a federal court addresses these concerns and clarifies how courts should evaluate causation and pretext at the summary judgment stage. If you have questions about retaliation or workers’ compensation-related employment actions, you should consult a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to assess your available legal options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant airline as a cross-trained agent responsible for customer service, operations, and ramp duties at an airport. During a work shift, the plaintiff sustained a head injury when an aircraft cabin door malfunctioned and struck him. A pilot prepared an internal incident report attributing the accident to maintenance failures, and the plaintiff informed a supervisor of the incident before completing his shift and seeking hospital treatment.

It is alleged that, despite the work-related nature of the injury, the defendant did not promptly provide the documentation necessary for the plaintiff to seek treatment through the Commonwealth workers’ compensation system. Instead, the plaintiff was told to rely on personal insurance, which delayed his formal report to the State Insurance Fund. Over time, the plaintiff experienced worsening symptoms, including neck pain and numbness, leading to diagnostic testing and eventual surgery. Continue reading →

Continue reading →

Airline employees face certain risks in the course of their duties, particularly during turbulent flights, which can turn routine tasks into hazardous situations. When worker injuries occur during flights, whether the injured employee is eligible for workers’ compensation benefits often hinges on the credibility of the employee’s testimony and the medical evidence presented. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court highlights how administrative judges evaluate causation in such cases and clarifies the deference afforded to credibility findings and the weighing of medical testimony. If you were injured on the job, speaking with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney can help ensure that your rights are protected throughout the claims process.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the employee worked as a flight attendant for the employer and claimed that he injured his hand during a turbulent flight between Florida and Massachusetts when a metal food cart tilted backwards and crushed his right hand. The employee was treated several days later and was diagnosed with a fracture of the fourth metacarpal bone. The matter proceeded to a hearing before an administrative judge, who considered testimony from the employee, deposition testimony from medical providers, and documentary evidence. The judge found the employee credible and concluded that the fracture was caused by the workplace incident involving the food cart.

It is alleged that the insurer appealed, arguing that the employee did not establish causation because the medical testimony did not explicitly confirm that the cart incident caused the fracture. The insurer pointed to evidence that the employee worked regular shifts after the incident and that he reportedly told a nurse practitioner that he hurt his hand playing basketball. The insurer relied heavily on the testimony of the treating physician, who stated that the employee’s injury could have involved both a workplace event and a sports-related event. The administrative judge, however, determined that the employee never reported that he injured his hand playing basketball and accepted the employee’s explanation that he had merely attempted to test his hand strength by trying to palm a basketball after the injury. Continue reading →

Continue reading →

Workplace safety in residential treatment facilities can be challenging to maintain, particularly when employees work directly with clients who present significant behavioral risks. When a violent incident occurs, grieving families often search for answers and accountability, and organizations face intense scrutiny over the policies that shaped the conditions of employment. A recent Massachusetts decision confronts these questions head-on by addressing whether the Workers’ Compensation Act precludes the directors of a charitable mental health provider from being held personally liable after an employee was killed on the job. If you or a family member suffered a workplace injury, you should speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand your options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the decedent worked as a residential counselor for a charitable mental health provider that accepted referrals from Massachusetts agencies and served clients with complex psychiatric and criminal histories. During one of her shifts, the decedent was left alone with a resident who attacked her, causing her death.

It is alleged that the estate later filed a wrongful death action in Superior Court against the director defendants, psychiatric consultants involved in the resident’s placement, the Commonwealth, and the resident himself. The complaint asserted that the director defendants failed to develop, or failed to maintain, essential admissions and screening procedures, workplace safety measures, staffing structures, and training protocols. It also asserted that inadequate access to referral information and insufficient preparation of frontline staff placed employees in dangerous positions. Continue reading →

Employers who fail to carry workers’ compensation insurance expose themselves to serious legal and financial risks. When an uninsured employee is injured, the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund may step in to pay benefits, but it will aggressively seek reimbursement from the noncompliant employer. A recent Massachusetts decision illustrates how swiftly the courts can act when an employer ignores these obligations and fails to respond to a civil action. If you are an employee seeking compensation for a workplace injury, it is essential to contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney promptly to discuss what steps you can take to protect your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff, the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund, brought suit against the defendant employer after it paid benefits to an injured worker who had been employed without the required insurance coverage. The Fund filed its complaint in May 2023, seeking reimbursement for all benefits paid, as well as attorneys’ fees and litigation costs associated with both the administrative proceedings before the Department of Industrial Accidents and the civil enforcement action.

Allegedly, the defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint but failed to file an answer or other responsive pleading within the time permitted by law. In October 2023, the clerk’s office entered a default against the defendant. Despite receiving notice of the default, the defendant took no further action to contest the allegations or seek to have the default set aside.

Continue reading →

Employees working remotely for out-of-state companies often face complex jurisdictional hurdles when bringing employment-related claims. An opinion recently issued by a Massachusetts court demonstrates how Massachusetts courts evaluate whether they can exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign or out-of-state employer accused of violating employment rights. If you work remotely from Massachusetts for an out-of-state company and believe your legal rights have been violated, consult a Massachusetts employment attorney to understand where and how your claims can be brought.

Background of the Dispute

It is reported that the plaintiff, a software engineer residing in Massachusetts, filed suit against the defendant, a Delaware company with principal operations outside Massachusetts. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and violations of Massachusetts wage and employment laws after the termination of his remote employment. The Defendant moved to dismiss the case, asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction under both the Massachusetts long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiff claimed that although the defendant had no physical offices in Massachusetts, he performed his job entirely from his home in the Commonwealth, attended virtual meetings, and received compensation in Massachusetts. He argued these contacts constituted sufficient business activity to bring the defendant within Massachusetts jurisdiction. Continue reading →

When a workplace injury results from a company’s disregard for worker safety, Massachusetts law provides an avenue for enhanced compensation. Under Massachusetts’s workers’ compensation law, an employee who proves that an employer’s conduct was “serious and willful” may recover double benefits. A recent Massachusetts ruling illustrates how courts analyze the sufficiency of such claims and determine whether evidence of safety violations rises to the level of “serious and willful misconduct.” If you have suffered a workplace injury and believe your employer ignored safety protocols, contact a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can evaluate what benefits you may be able to recover.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment. He pursued workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that his employer’s safety failures constituted “serious and willful misconduct.” The employee asserted that management knowingly allowed unsafe working conditions and failed to take corrective action after previous incidents and warnings.

Allegedly, the injury occurred while the plaintiff was engaged in physically demanding labor involving heavy equipment. He claimed that the employer’s supervisors were aware of the risks posed by the method of work being used but failed to implement safety measures or training required by company policy and industry standards. The plaintiff filed a claim for double compensation pursuant to § 28, which permits enhanced benefits where an employer’s misconduct is more than mere negligence and shows a reckless disregard for worker safety. Continue reading →