12 Cited authorities

Radio Union v. Broadcast Serv
380 U.S. 255 (1965) Cited 324 times
Holding that two entities were a single employer and therefore that their gross receipts could be totaled together to establish jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act
Romano v. U-Haul Intern
233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir. 2000) Cited 168 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant employer is responsible for proving that it made good faith efforts to comply with the requirements of Title VII, and that the mere existence of an antidiscrimination policy was insufficient absent proof that the employer actually implemented the policy
Difiore v. American Airlines, Inc.
454 Mass. 486 (Mass. 2009) Cited 91 times
Applying the Tip Statute, M.G.L. c. 149 § 152A
Martin v. Tango's Rest., Inc.
969 F.2d 1319 (1st Cir. 1992) Cited 80 times
Holding section 203(m) to “require at the very least notice to employees of the employer's intention to treat tips as satisfying part of the employer's minimum wage obligations”
Marques v. Digital Equipment Corp.
637 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1980) Cited 101 times
Holding that Mas Marques's affidavit filed ten days after the entry of summary judgment provided insufficient grounds to set aside the judgment, where no explanation was given for his failure to present the affidavit or its contents earlier, and no claim was made that further facts became known to him only after judgment had been entered
North America Inc. v. Unemployment Assistance
447 Mass. 852 (Mass. 2006) Cited 41 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that an employer did not satisfy Prong C of the identical unemployment statute simply by showing that its contract with a worker allowed her "to expand her business by hiring employees and directly soliciting new customers"
Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc.
707 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D. Mass. 2010) Cited 24 times 8 Legal Analyses
Finding that the defendant failed to establish that the franchisees are independent contractors as opposed to employees
De Giovanni v. Jani-King International, Inc.
262 F.R.D. 71 (D. Mass. 2009) Cited 20 times
Finding that employment classification dispute under Massachusetts independent contractor statute could be resolved by common evidence
Wilfert v. Massachusetts Comm
No. 0202671 (Mass. Cmmw. Mar. 21, 2006) Cited 1 times
No. 0202671. Memorandum Dated March 21, 2006. NEEL, STEPHEN E., J. Wilfert Brothers Realty Company ("Wilfert Realty") brings this action seeking judicial review of a decision rendered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("Commission") in favor of the defendant, David Keeling ("Keeling"). Wilfert appeals the Commission's decision pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, § 14, and G.L.c. 151B, § 6, arguing that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. For the following
Section 149:148 - Payment of wages; commissions; exemption by contract; persons deemed employers; provision for cashing check or draft; violation of statute
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 § 148 Cited 509 times 29 Legal Analyses
Providing that "any employee discharged from [his] employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge"
Section 149:148B - Persons performing service not authorized under this chapter deemed employees; exception
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 § 148B Cited 174 times 33 Legal Analyses
Specifying types of services considered to be not those performed by an employee and noting that an employer's failure to make withholdings or payments that would be required for an employee "shall not be considered in making a determination" as to a person's employee status
Section 151A:2 - Service deemed employment; exclusions
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151A § 2 Cited 26 times 6 Legal Analyses
Requiring employer to demonstrate that individual is free from direction and control "both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact"

De Giovanni v. Jani-King International, Inc. et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding that two entities were a single employer and therefore that their gross receipts could be totaled together to establish jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act

Holding that the defendant employer is responsible for proving that it made good faith efforts to comply with the requirements of Title VII, and that the mere existence of an antidiscrimination policy was insufficient absent proof that the employer actually implemented the policy

Applying the Tip Statute, M.G.L. c. 149 § 152A

Holding section 203(m) to “require at the very least notice to employees of the employer's intention to treat tips as satisfying part of the employer's minimum wage obligations”

Finding that an employer did not satisfy Prong C of the identical unemployment statute simply by showing that its contract with a worker allowed her "to expand her business by hiring employees and directly soliciting new customers"

Finding that the defendant failed to establish that the franchisees are independent contractors as opposed to employees

Finding that employment classification dispute under Massachusetts independent contractor statute could be resolved by common evidence

Providing that "any employee discharged from [his] employment shall be paid in full on the day of his discharge"

Specifying types of services considered to be not those performed by an employee and noting that an employer's failure to make withholdings or payments that would be required for an employee "shall not be considered in making a determination" as to a person's employee status

Requiring employer to demonstrate that individual is free from direction and control "both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact"