Attorney Liz Valerio will present at the Massachusetts Municipal Management Association’s (MMMA) monthly meeting on September 19, 2019. Liz will provide a labor law update.
https://www.mma.org/event/management-association-monthly-meeting-3/
Several components of the Paid Family and Medical Leave (“PFML”) law[1] are going into effect beginning the end of this month. As a reminder, employers must follow the timeline below to comply with the law:
If you have questions or concerns about the PFML law, please contact any of our attorneys.
This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.
[1] If any part of your workforce is unionized, you may have a bargaining obligation over the new PFML law. Please contact a VDH attorney if you have any unionized employees to discuss your potential bargaining obligation.
Last week, the legislature and newly established Department of Family and Medical Leave made changes to the Paid Family and Medical Leave (“PFML”) law[1]. These changes delay many relevant dates under the PFML law, and also make some substantive changes.
The amendments include the following:
The Department has created visual breakdowns of the new contributions rates:
Employers with 25 or more employees:
Employers with fewer than 25 employees:
If you have questions or concerns about the PFML law, please contact any of our attorneys.
This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.
[1] If any part of your workforce is unionized, you may have a bargaining obligation over the new PFML law. Please contact a VDH attorney if you have any unionized employees to discuss your potential bargaining obligation.
Attorney Liz Valerio will present at the Massachusetts Municipal Personnel Association (MMPA) Human Resources Boot Camp on May 16, 2019. Liz will discuss trends in municipal/labor law.
In a recent decision the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has ruled that a request by a full-time teacher to work part-time for medical reasons may constitute a reasonable accommodation under the federal and Massachusetts statutes which bar discrimination against an employee with a qualifying disability. In Incutto v. Newton Public Schools, et al., Civil Action No. 16-12385-LTS, the court denied the school district’s motion for summary judgment and held that the teacher had presented sufficient evidence to let a jury decide the case. The plaintiff was employed as a full-time kindergarten teacher but after being diagnosed with a qualifying medical condition had requested that she be assigned part-time teaching duties. The school district argued that because her position was full-time, an essential function of her job was attendance during the regular school-day hours of 8:20 AM to 3:30 PM Monday through Friday. The parties agreed that other than being present full-time the teacher could perform all the other required functions of her teaching position.
The court concluded that whether full-time attendance was an “essential function” would have to be decided after trial. It pointed to evidence in the record that for each of ten school years between three and seven elementary school teaching positions were job-shared by two teachers in the district and that in the three years before that the plaintiff herself had worked as a part-time teacher by job-sharing with others. Based on this the court held that the plaintiff had produced enough evidence to go before a jury on the question whether full-time presence was an “essential function” of her job and, therefore, whether her requested accommodation was unreasonable.
This case demonstrates how fact-specific is the inquiry which an employer must make when an employee requests an accommodation. Evidence as to whether the employer has imposed the same requirement on all similarly-situated employees will necessarily be relevant to making that determination.
If you have questions or concerns about this issue, or about school law generally, please contact any of our attorneys.
This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.
Attorneys Liz Valerio and John Foskett will present at the Massachusetts School Business Officials (MASBO) Workshop on April 10, 2019. Liz and John will discuss hot topics in school law such as Hourly Employees, Social Media and Copyright Issues, Collective Bargaining, Budget Development and Budget Hearings, Revolving Accounts, Classroom Fundraising, Gifts and Grants, Uniform Grant Guidelines, and Potential School Finance Reform (legislative update).
Attorneys Liz Valerio and Nick Dominello will present at the annual School Law Day conference of the Massachusetts Association of Personnel Administrators (MASPA) on March 1, 2019. Liz and Nick will discuss public records requests and open meeting law complaints, educator and staff misconduct investigations and provide a brief update on issues associated with medical marijuana in schools.
The Massachusetts Council of School Attorneys (COSA) held its annual meeting on December 7, 2018. John Foskett was the Program Moderator and COSA Board of Directors President in 2018. He also presented on a recent DLR Hearing Officer Decision and Commonwealth of Employment Relations Board Decision regarding a Massachusetts School District and the District’s rights regarding “core education policy” decisions.
Nominations were held for the COSA 2019 Board of Directors. Nicholas J. Dominello was voted in as a Member at Large for 2019.
In June 2018 we reported that the Middlesex Superior Court had granted a preliminary injunction which enjoined the Natick School Committee from enforcing certain restrictions on public comment at school committee meetings which are set out in its public comment policy [see prior client advisory of 6-7-18]. On November 21, 2018 the court entered a ruling on the merits of the case, Spaulding, et al. v. Town of Natick School Committee, Civil Action No. 2018-01115. The court’s decision granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, who are the parents of two former (unrelated) students. They had claimed that the School Committee’s enforcement of its policy by restricting their statements during public comment sessions violated their right of free speech under Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The court assessed their claim by applying rules under the analogous provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Concluding that the public comment session is a “designated public forum” for speech, the court evaluated Natick’s public comment policy.
This is a trial court decision which is binding only on the parties to the case. Nonetheless, because much of the content in Natick’s policy also appears in a model policy provided by MASC, the issues will likely be of import for many school districts. Among items left unaddressed by the court, and presumably lawful, is the school committee’s authority to prevent “disruption” of its meetings – with the important caveat that in its earlier injunction order the court had issued an admonition that this could not apply to speech that is “school-related” and is “delivered in a calm manner”. Moreover, the court was not asked to address time limits on speech during public comment. So long as these are reasonable and administered uniformly to all speakers without regard to subject matter or viewpoint, such limits should pass constitutional muster.
Technically part of the lawsuit remains pending, so the Natick School Committee is probably not yet able to appeal unless the trial court reports the case. We will continue monitoring the case to determine whether the appellate courts will become involved. In the interim, it may make sense for committees to review their public comment policies with an eye to this ruling.
If you have questions or concerns about this issue, or about school law generally, please contact any of our attorneys.
This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.