![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Kramer, for Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Shatz, Rebecca Pontikes, & Naitasia Hensey, for Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.Īlyssa Z. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Cypher, J., concurring.ĬIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 8, 2019.Ī motion to dismiss was heard by Douglas H. Georges, J., dissenting, with whom Gaziano, J., joined.Ī Superior Court judge properly dismissed the count of a complaint in a civil action that alleged a violation of public policy arising out of the defendant's termination of the plaintiff's employment, where the plaintiff had an adequate remedy under the Domestic Violence and Abuse Leave Act, G. 149, § 52E, when the defendant terminated the plaintiff's employment, the plaintiff in her complaint alleged sufficient facts to plausibly suggest that she was the defendant's employee and that she provided the requisite appropriate and advance In the circumstances of a civil action alleging that the defendant unlawfully interfered with the plaintiff's exercise of her right to leave under the Domestic Violence and Abuse Leave Act, G. Georges, J., dissenting, with whom Gaziano, J., joined. 149, § 52E (i), arising out of the defendant's termination of the plaintiff's employment two weeks after the plaintiff, to whom the defendant had sent a letter memorializing her acceptance of the defendant's offer of employment but prior to the date on which the plaintiff was scheduled to start work for the defendant, disclosed to the defendant that the plaintiff's abuser (who had been stalking, harassing, and threatening the plaintiff) had violated the terms of a harassment prevention order and that the plaintiff had reported the violation to the police, the plaintiff in her complaint alleged sufficient facts to plausibly suggest that she provided the requisite appropriate and advance notice that she might need the leave afforded under the statute, and that a causal connection existed between her invocation of her right to leave under the statute and the defendant's adverse employment action. In a civil action alleging a violation of the nonretaliation provision of the Domestic Violence and Abuse Leave Act, G. 149, § 52E, arising out of the defendant's termination of the plaintiff's employment after the plaintiff, to whom the defendant had sent a letter memorializing her acceptance of the defendant's offer of employment but prior to the date on which the plaintiff was scheduled to start work for the defendant, disclosed to the defendant that the plaintiff's abuser (who had been stalking, harassing, and threatening the plaintiff) had violated the terms of a harassment prevention order and that the plaintiff had reported the violation to the police, the plaintiff in her complaint alleged sufficient facts to plausibly suggest that she was the defendant's employee within the meaning of the statute. In a civil action alleging a violation of the Domestic Violence and Abuse Leave Act, G. Practice, Civil, Complaint, Motion to dismiss. (5) SJC-12991 06 Amicus Women Bar Association of Massachusetts Briefĭomestic Violence and Abuse Leave.(4) SJC-12991 05 Amicus MA Employment Lawyers Association Brief.(3) SJC-12991 04 Appellant Osborne-Trussell Reply Brief.(2) SJC-12991 03 Appellee Childrens Hospital Corporation Brief.(1) SJC-12991 01 Appellant Osborne-Trussell Brief.248 JanuAugCourt Below: Superior Court, Suffolk County Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt, & Georges, JJ. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION, 488 Mass. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |