Hlatky in a better position than she would have been had there been no breach, e.g., “othing would prevent Hlatky from spending the $10 million on a house or a yacht rather than on the reestablishment of a cancer research laboratory.” Hlatky, an unrestricted award might put Dr. In the six Justice decision, three Justices were concerned that, since the laboratory had not actually belonged to Dr. The Court was, however, divided regarding whether restrictions should be imposed on how Dr. Hlatky, including the loss of her research laboratory, equipment, and cell samples, constituted her “life’s work.” On appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously agreed the damages awarded were not too speculative, noting that the harm suffered by Dr. The $10 million damage award represented the cost of reestablishing her research laboratory, which she lost as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct. Hlatky, an experienced cancer researcher, was awarded $10 million in damages in a breach of contract action against her former employer, Steward Health. Steward Health Care System, Inc., 484 Mass. Breach of Contract Damages for the Loss of One’s Life’s Work If you think that you may have been illegally targeted, seek legal counsel as soon as possible and prior to waiving any legal rights.ģ.
WF CASES FREE
Indeed, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has noted, just because an employer may be required to “reduce its workforce does not mean that it is free to make its employment decisions on impermissible grounds: ‘even during a legitimate reorganization or workforce reduction, an employer may not dismiss employees for unlawful discriminatory reasons.’” See Sullivan v. It is important to remember that neither a global pandemic nor an economic recession can be used as a shield by employers to carry out unlawful employment practices. Equal Employment Commission, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and Office of the Attorney General.
To that end, there has been a great deal of COVID-specific guidance provided by state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Unlawful Employment Practices During the COVID-19 Pandemicĭuring these uncertain times, employers and employees alike are struggling to understand their legal rights and obligations. Such discrimination has long been a violation of Massachusetts law, Chapter 151B, but with the Bostock decision, it is now clearly unlawful to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.Ģ. That has always been prohibited by Title VII’s plain terms - and that should be the end of the analysis.’” “or an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex.
In the 6-3 Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Gorsuch - who, along with Chief Justice Roberts, sided with the four “liberal” members of the Court - the majority held that a “straightforward” rule emerges from the ordinary meaning and application of Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination: Clayton County, holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees based upon sexual orientation and transgender status. The Supreme Court has issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Civil Rights Decisionīostock v. Below is a brief summary of the seven most significant employment legal cases.ġ. In this ever-changing landscape, it is increasingly important to keep up to speed on the latest employment legal cases and developments. Then we all witnessed a historic decision from the Supreme Court, affirming, at long last, that our family and friends in the LBGTQ community are protected from discrimination in employment under federal law. When March began this year, nobody had any idea what was just around the corner – a global pandemic, a fiscal meltdown, unprecedented unemployment and a national reckoning with the terrible consequences of centuries of racial violence and inequity.