- Posts by Scott J. Connolly
Member of the FirmAttorney Scott Connolly draws on insights gained as both in-house and outside counsel to help employers effectively navigate the full spectrum of legal challenges that arise throughout the employment relationship.
His approach ...
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit provides an important reminder that an employer’s exposure to a retaliation claim can arise even after it has already made a lawful decision to terminate an employee.
In Russo v. New Hampshire Neurospine Institute, P.A., No. 25-1519 (1st Cir. Aug. 25, 2026), the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an employer on an employee’s sex discrimination claim, but reinstated her retaliation claim. The court concluded that, although the employer had decided to terminate the employee before her attorney sent a demand letter alleging discrimination on her behalf, a jury could find that subsequent changes to the terms and timing of her separation were retaliatory.
The Massachusetts PROTECT Act (Chapter 163 of the Acts of 2026), signed by Governor Healey on August 5, 2026, is aimed at keeping federal immigration enforcement out of “sensitive places,” including courthouses, schools, child care centers and health care facilities. The Act also created an immediate compliance obligation for employers with employees working in Massachusetts.
In a recent decision from the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court, Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc., the court held that the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Law (PFML) does not impose individual liability and does not recognize aiding-and-abetting claims. The decision highlights key differences between the PFML and other laws covering Massachusetts employers, and holds that, unlike statutes that expressly permit claims against individual corporate officers and agents, the PFML limits liability to the employer entity itself.
Last year, Massachusetts joined the growing list of states with pay equity legislation by passing an Act Relative To Salary Range Transparency (the “Law”). As we previously reported, the pay data reporting requirements of the Law went into effect earlier this year, requiring most large private employers to submit annual wage data reports to the Commonwealth. Employers need to be prepared to comply with the Law’s pay range disclosure requirements going into effect next month.
Recent Updates
- U.S. Court of Appeals Decision Highlights Retaliation Risks During Employee Separations
- Fast Facts About the DOL Proposed Rule for Electronic Disclosures for ERISA Group Health Plans
- San Francisco Amends its Fair Chance Ordinance
- New Massachusetts Employer Notice Obligation
- Watch: Change Is Coming from the EEOC—but When? - Employment Law This Week