Category Archives: News

Strang, Scott honored in 2016 Edition of Super Lawyers

By Strang Scott on October 20, 2016

Strang Scott is honored to announce the selection of Christopher Strang as a 2016 Super Lawyer and Jordan Scott as a 2016 Rising Star by the Massachusetts edition of Super Lawyers. Mr. Strang has been recognized for his outstanding work in construction litigation for the eighth consecutive year, first as a Rising Star and then as a Super Lawyer, while Mr. Scott has earned his second consecutive recognition for his employment practice. The Super Lawyers selection team chooses only 5% of eligible attorneys as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5% of eligible attorneys as Rising Stars. Both lists are the result of a process that includes a statewide lawyer survey, independent research, and peer reviews.

Strang Scott Prevails on Summary Judgment in Case Involving Falsified Payroll Reports on Federal Construction Project

By Strang Scott on October 13, 2016

In the case of United States for the Use and Benefit of Metric Electric, Inc. v. CCB, Inc. and the Hanover Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 15-11934, in the United States District Court in Massachusetts, the court ruled in favor of Strang Scott’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims.

The case arose over construction work in the John F. Kennedy Federal Building in Boston. The electrical subcontractor submitted periodic certifications that it paid its employees for work performed on the project. These statements turned out to be false. Six of the subcontractor’s employees brought suit against it for failure to pay wages over several months.

The general contractor terminated the subcontract shortly thereafter. The electrical subcontractor brought suit against the general contractor and its payment bond surety, claiming an unpaid subcontract balance was due. The claims were brought under the Miller Act, as well as for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and violations of M.G.L. c. 93A (the Massachusetts law governing unfair or deceptive business practices).

Attorney Christopher Strang argued that intentionally submitting false certified payroll documents constitutes a material breach of contract, justifying termination and also extinguishing any right to further payment. The judge agreed, finding “[i]ts failure to pay its employees in a timely fashion as required by state and federal law (as well as by the terms of the Subcontract), compounded by Sampson’s filing of perjured certifications of payment, bars Metric from entering any chamber of equity.”

Contractors should use caution when submitting certifications on public, or any, construction projects. Making false statements on these documents can preclude any future recovery of contract payments. Concerned contractors should contact an experienced Massachusetts construction attorney.

Strang Scott Opens New Office in New Hampshire

By Strang Scott on September 13, 2016

We are pleased to announce that Strang Scott has expanded its presence in New Hampshire by opening a new office in New London. Our New Hampshire practice will continue to focus on construction, real estate and estate planning. We are excited for this opportunity and look forward to the continued growth of our business in the Granite State!

Strang Scott is Hiring — Office Manager

By Strang Scott on August 8, 2016

Strang, Scott, Giroux & Young, LLP, is seeking an experienced full-time office manager. We are an up and coming business law and litigation firm with offices located Boston’s Kenmore Square and New London, New Hampshire. The candidate should be detail oriented and able to balance multiple assignments. Strong communication, administrative, organizational and computer skills are required.

Responsibilities include:

Managing attorneys’ schedules
Organizing and tracking client files
Communicating with clients, opposing counsel and court personnel
Drafting, formatting, and editing legal documents including correspondence, subpoenas, pleadings and financial statements
Office management
Managing client billing and payments
Managing office supplies
Vendor purchases and payments
Mail distribution
Answering phones
Managing client database

Qualifications/Experience:

Ability to work independently and as part of a team
Proficiency with Microsoft Office
Experience with QuickBooks or willingness to learn
Self starting

Must have prior experience working in a law office. This position is located in the Firm’s Boston, Massachusetts office. For further information regarding the Firm, please visit www.strangscott.com and please direct inquiries and correspondence to esantos@www.strangscott.com

Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Law

By Jordan Scott on August 3, 2016

On August 1, 2016, Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker signed the equal pay law, a law that has been working through the legislature since 1998. The law takes effect on July 1, 2018. The law bars discrimination on the basis of gender in the payment of wages, including benefits and other compensation, for “comparable work.” The statute defines comparable work to mean work that requires substantially similar “skill, effort and responsibility” and is performed under similar working conditions. The law allows variation in wages based on:

seniority;
merit;
productivity as measured by quantity or quality of sales or production;
geographic location;
education, training, or experience reasonably related to the job; or
regular travel.

The law provides several direct remedies for violations with a three-year statute of limitations. Aggrieved employees can bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and similar situated employees, and recover the amount of wages underpaid, as well as an additional amount of wages underpaid as liquidated damages (amounting to double damages), plus reasonable attorney’s fees. Employers also face liability for retaliation under the law.

An employee’s previous wage or salary history may not be used as a defense, but the law does provide employers with one affirmative defense: if, within the prior three years and before a lawsuit is brought, employers complete a good faith self-evaluation of its pay practices and demonstrate that reasonable progress has been made towards eliminating pay differentials based on gender, liability under this law can be avoided. Employers may design their own self-evaluations, if they are reasonable in detail and scope in light of the employer’s size.

Finally, this law makes illegal some common practices. Employers may not bar employees from discussing their own wages or the wages of fellow employees. Further, employers may not screen job applicants based on salary history or even ask about prior wages or salary history. However, prospective employees may provide written authorization for a prospective employer to confirm prior wages, but only after the prospective employer makes an employment offer.

The attorney general is empowered to bring its own lawsuit based on equal pay violations and may issue regulations interpreting this law, which can include templates for employer self-evaluations. Although gender discrimination has long been illegal in Massachusetts, this law provides employees with new avenues for relief and places additional restrictions on employers. Employers should consult with Massachusetts employment attorneys to confirm that hiring practices will comply with the law and to ensure that potential liability is limited through self-evaluations.

Massachusetts Noncompete Reform Legislation Fails

By Strang Scott on August 1, 2016

As a follow up to our recent post on the subject, the Massachusetts legislature failed to enact reform to noncompete agreements by the July 31, 2016 legislative deadline, despite both the House and the Senate passing versions of the bill. The primary point of disagreement between the two legislative houses concerned the “garden leave” provision that would require employers to compensate employees during the restrictive period. State legislators involved in the negotiations reported that the House wanted employers and employees to negotiate the monetary value of the “garden leave” clause when the agreement was initially signed, while the Senate wanted employees to be able to negotiate when leaving the employer in order to provide greater bargaining power to the employees. Although noncompete reform will not happen this year, legislators will likely revive the bill in the next session.

Contractors Beware: OSHA Penalties Set to Increase on August 1, 2016

By Corey Giroux on July 27, 2016

On August 1, 2016, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”), will raise the limits of its maximum penalties for the first time in nearly twenty-six years.

Current maximum penalties for “serious,” “other than serious” and “posting requirement” penalties will increase from $7,000.00 per violation to $12,471.00 per violation. Penalties for failure to abate hazards or violations will increase from $7,000.00 to $12,471.00 per day for each failure to abate the condition subsequent to the abatement date. Finally, the maximum penalties for “willful” or “repeat” violations will increase from $70,000.00 to $124,709.00 per violation.

All contractors, and especially those with a history of violations or alleged violations with OSHA, would be wise to insure that all personal protective equipment, tools and equipment are OSHA compliant in advance of the changes in maximum penalties. If your firm hasn’t recently revisited its safety procedures, practices and documentation, now is the time to review your firm’s safety program in order to avoid exposure to increased maximum penalties for OSHA violations set to take effect.

For contractors in states that operate their own, state run, “mini-OSHAs,” OSHA has required that those agencies adopt maximum penalties that meet or exceed those imposed by OSHA. Accordingly, contractors operating in states with “mini-OSHA” agencies should be mindful to consider whether they’re subject to penalties for any violation that may exceed the penalty that OSHA might impose for any similar violation.

Of course, the best way to avoid an increased OSHA penalty for a violation is to refrain from committing any violation. As a practical matter, violations frequently occur despite your firm’s best efforts and dedication to providing a safe and compliant work environment. If OSHA requests to inspect your work site or office, you’d be well-advised to immediately contact an attorney experienced in OSHA practice to help guide your firm through the process and to achieve best results.

Massachusetts Enacts New Transgender Rights Law

By Strang Scott on July 11, 2016

On July 8, 2016, Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker signed a bill that provides new protections for transgender people. The new law bars discrimination against transgender people in public accommodations, defined as any place open to the public including public rest rooms and locker rooms. The Attorney General’s office has been tasked with issuing regulations or guidance for legal action against any person who asserts gender identity for an “improper purpose,” and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination will also develop guidelines to aid compliance with the law. The law goes into effect on October 1, 2016.

Massachusetts House of Representatives Passes Non-Compete Reform

By Strang Scott on June 30, 2016

On June 29, 2016, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed House bill 4434, An Act Relative to the Enforcement of Noncompetition Agreements. Non-compete reform has been brewing in the Massachusetts legislature for several years, but the reform sought by many may finally be here, if the bill is enacted. This bill contains two key provisions: an adoption of a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and substantial reform of Massachusetts non-competition law, which thus far has been only addressed by the courts. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act section provides for injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees to protect trade secrets, and supersedes any conflicting laws providing for civil remedies for trade secret misappropriation.

The non-compete reform represents significant changes to existing law. The bill provides that a non-compete agreement must comply with seven criteria to be valid and enforceable: (i) if entered into in connection with the commencement of employment, it must be in writing and signed by employer and employee, and state that employees have the right to consult with a lawyer; (ii) if entered into after commencement of employment, it must be supported by fair consideration independent from continued employment; (iii) it must be no broader than necessary to protect trade secrets, other confidential information, or the employer’s goodwill; (iv) it may not exceed a duration of 12 months unless the employee has misappropriated employee property, in which case it may be extended to 2 years; (v) it must be reasonable in geographic scope, defined as where the employee provided services or had a material presence; (vi) it must be reasonable in scope of proscribed activities in relation to the interests it protects; and (vii) it must be supported by a “garden leave clause” or something similar, defined as a payment from the employer to the employee during the restricted period.

Finally, the bill provides that non-competition agreements shall not be enforceable against certain categories of employees, including those classified as nonexempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and those terminated without cause or laid off.

While the Uniform Trade Secrets Act provision of the bill is unlikely to draw controversy, as it is generally consistent with current law in the Commonwealth, the House bill 4434 contains significant changes to non-competition law. Should this bill be enacted into law, employers will need to update their non-competition agreements to ensure enforceability.

Chris Strang Appointed to Lawyers for Affordable Justice Advisory Board

By Strang Scott on June 21, 2016

Partner Chris Strang recently accepted an appointment to serve on the Advisory Board for Lawyers for Affordable Justice (LAJ). Founded in January, 2016, LAJ is a collection of independent lawyers joining forces to provide legal services to low and moderate income clients at rates they can afford.

The LAJ attorneys are able to provide services at reduced rates by sharing overhead and expenses in a new incubator facility located in Kenmore Square. The program was designed as a collaborative effort by Boston University School of Law, Boston College Law School, and Northeastern University School of Law. It was made possible in part by a grant from the American Bar Association.

Entrepreneurial-minded recent graduates from each of these three law schools will serve as LAJ attorneys for two-year periods. Several experienced attorneys and law professors provide mentoring and training. The Advisory Board will monitor the program’s progress and make periodic recommendations.

Despite being only a few months old, LAJ is already making headlines in the local press.