Boston Employment Attorneys Fighting For Your Rights
At [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″], we are proud to serve employers and workers in the greater Boston area and throughout Massachusetts in a wide variety of employment law matters. With millions of dollars in settlements and judgments in wage and hour cases in the past year alone, you can trust in our experience to fight aggressively for your rights .
If you believe you’ve been discriminated against by your employer or if you’ve been accused of discrimination by an employee, you need the representation of seasoned employment law attorneys. Call [nap_phone id=”LOCAL-REGULAR-NUMBER-2″] today for a initial consultation and let us discuss your options.
Wage and Hour Cases
September 2016: [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″] recently settled a multi-million dollar class action law suit against a telecommunications company in Massachusetts. The allegations involved non-payment of overtime wages to more than 350 salaried ‘analysts.’ Despite popular belief, and as this case demonstrates, those who are salaried employees are commonly still entitled to receive overtime wages.
January 2016 : [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″] is pleased to announce that we have settled a multi-million dollar class action involving allegations of improper tip and wage practices.
September 2014: Wage and hour case settles out of court. Allegations involved an employee who worked as a dispatcher for a construction company who was not paid overtime and was not allowed to take meal breaks. Case settled favorably for client after retaining [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″].
June 2015: Wage and hour case settles against multi-national corporation in federal court on day of mediation. Allegations involved former traveling salespeople who were denied overtime payments by former employer. Case settled favorably for client after retaining [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″].
December 2014: Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment case settled. Allegations involved a single mother who applied for job in the health care industry. After applying, she was promised a job if she engaged in sex acts with the hiring manager. Case settled favorably for client after retaining [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″].
March 2016: Gender discrimination case settled before trial. [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″] settles a gender discrimination case on behalf of a Massachusetts civil service worker for more than $500,000.
January 2015: Sexual discrimination case settled at mediation. Heterosexual male was prohibited from working in women’s department of a high-end retail store. The store preferred to hire women and homosexual men to sell in their women’s department. Case settled favorably for client after retaining [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″].
April 2015: Disability Discrimination case settles. Allegations involved an employee who was diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome. Employer would not grant employee a reasonable accommodation so that she could perform the basic functions of her job. Case settled favorably for client after retaining [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″].
April 2015: Pregnancy discrimination case settles at mediation. Case settled favorably for client after retaining [nap_names id=”FIRM-NAME-3″].
September 2017: Jury in federal court awarded our client almost $200,000 in damages against multiple defendants in breach of contract case involving investments in land. Several other defendants settled with our client shortly before trial.
January 2015: Hardship license appeal successful at Registry of Motor Vehicles. Client was a traveling salesman who heavily relied on his license and vehicle to drive throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to visit clients. Client was granted hardship license after having license suspended for Operating Under the Influence conviction.
February 2015: Judgment secured for landlord client against tenant who was six months behind on rent. After a bench trial, the presiding justice ordered the tenant out of the premises within two weeks.
February 2015: Client accused of negligent operation has charges dismissed by judge on day of trial for lack of evidence over the Commonwealth’s objection.