Seyfarth Synopsis: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered longstanding questions about which entities may be jointly responsible for wage violations under Massachusetts law, and in so doing, highlighted the perils for employees of joining a federal collective action and failing to assert any related state law claims in that proceeding. The Court aligned the Massachusetts standard for joint employment with federal law and held that employees who join a federal case may not later bring state law claims against their employer in a separate action.
Joint Employment
In Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, the plaintiffs argued that they were employees of not only the direct sales company that hired and paid them but also a third-party sales broker that facilitated their work selling products or services for nationally recognized brands. Plaintiffs argued that the expansive and stringent ABC test found in the Commonwealth’s Independent Contractor statute, G.L. c. 149, § 148B, also determined whether a third-party can be liable for wage-related violations. The result of that theory would have made an entity the joint employer of any and every individual in Massachusetts who performed work within the entity’s “usual course of business” (Prong B of the test), regardless of whether the entity had any direct contact with or control over those employees.
The SJC, in a December 13, 2021 decision which can be found here, rejected plaintiffs’ theory, finding that the ABC test answers...
The issues of fraud and fraudulent billings continue to dominate national and local headlines. The state lost its federal Medicaid fraud unit funding for not aggressively pursuing falsified billin...