Round 2 of CORI Reform
On Friday, May 4, 2012, the second round of the Criminal Offender Record Information (“CORI”) provisions become effective. The initial CORI requirements went into effect in August and November 2010. Click here to read a prior alert regarding the 2010 CORI requirements.
Many employers perform CORI or “background checks” to determine whether an applicant for employment, new hire, or volunteer has a criminal record. While performing a background check is an important aspect of the pre-hire process, employers must adhere to provisions of the CORI law that the Commonwealth has established to protect employees and applicants. Failure to abide by these new requirements exposes employers to steep fines.
What is a CORI?
A CORI report contains detailed information about a person’s criminal history, such as criminal charges that have been brought and the disposition, or outcome of the case. CORI reports are limited to arrests, charges and convictions that have been brought in Massachusetts and that are or were pending in a Massachusetts state or federal court. While CORI reports provide useful information to employers about applicants for employment and employees, and can aid employers in defending against negligent hiring claims, they also can create barriers to employment. Read More…
Massachusetts Extends Protection to Transgendered Employees
On November 23, 2011, Governor Patrick signed a bill that protects transgendered individuals from discrimination in employment. “An Act Relative To Gender Identity,” makes Massachusetts the 16th state to extend protected class status to its 33,000 residents who identify as transgender. The law will become effective on July 1, 2012. The passage of this bill follows Governor Patrick’s February 2011 executive order prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in state employment. Read More…
MA High-Court Rules on Whether Employee Who Accepted Incentive-Based Layoff Is Entitled to Unemployment Benefits
On June 16, 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) considered whether the plaintiff, a former employee of Verizon, was entitled to unemployment benefits even though she accepted an incentive-based voluntary termination package. Connolly v. Dir. of Div. of Unemployment Assist. Affirming a decision by the district court, the SJC ruled that the former employee, Kristen Connolly, was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she could not show that her decision to leave her job was involuntary. In so ruling, the Court considered the fact that the plaintiff: Read More…
How Employers Can Host a Summer Party Without Getting Burned
From Memorial Day barbeques, Fourth of July fireworks, Labor Day soirees and many pub-crawls and Friday afternoon happy hours in between, the summer season offers employees and employers the opportunity to bond outside of the workplace. While these events can serve to strengthen employment relationships and build morale, they also can be a hotbed for employer liability. Read More…
MA High Court Extends Retaliation Protection: Rules Company Retaliated Against Former Employee 2 Years Post-Employment
On May 12, 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) upheld a trial court ruling that an employer who filed a baseless lawsuit against a former employee, two years after that employee had filed a discrimination charge against the employer with the MCAD, violated the anti-retaliation provisions of Massachusetts General Law chapter 151B, §§4(4) and (4A). Psy-Ed Corp., et al. v. Klein, et al. This was the first instance in which the SJC ruled that post-employment actions taken by an employer against a former employee may violate the anti-retaliation provisions of the Commonwealth’s Fair Employment Practices Act. Read More…
EEOC Issues Final Regulations Implementing the ADA Amendments Act
On March 25, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008. These regulations, like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) itself, apply to employers with 15 or more employees.
The purpose of the regulations, according to an EEOC press release, is to “simplify the determination of who has a ‘disability’ and make it easier for people to establish that they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act”. Read More…
1st Circuit Rules Employer Took Adequate Steps to Stop Harassment
On March 21, 2011, the First Circuit provided useful guidance for employers responding to employee harassment allegations. Affirming a lower court decision, the First Circuit ruled that (1) employers have wide discretion in determining appropriate discipline in response to an initial complaint of harassment, and (2) an employer cannot be held liable for coworker harassment about which it did not know. Wilson v. Moulison North Corp.
Read More…
At Your Fingertips: Massachusetts and Federal Employment Law Resources
If you would like quick answers to your employment law questions — straight from the sources that implement the laws — look no further. In this blog, I have assembled links to the most commonly accessed employment law resources, including:
- Massachusetts General Laws
- Federal Laws and Regulations
- Federal and State Agencies
- Enforcement Manuals
- Compliance Manuals
- Model Policies
- Statute Guidelines
- Fact Sheets
- Attorney General Advisories
- Resources from the Department of Labor, EEOC, MCAD and Attorney General
Massachusetts Highest Court Rules Employers May Not Deduct Property Damage Expenses from Employee Paychecks
On January 25, 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) sided with the state’s Attorney General, ruling that the Wage Act prohibits employers from deducting wages from an employee’s paycheck to cover property damage caused by the employee. Camara v. Attorney General, SJC-10693. Read More…
Allyson Kurker, J.D.
Kurker Law LLC
427 Elm Street / Concord, MA 01742
TEL 978.254.5487
EMAIL allyson@kurkerlaw.com
Helping clients balance their business and legal objectives
