The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) described the town of Brookline s response to allegations of racism within its fire department as woefully deficient and insensitive in a ruling on Tuesday. The court found that the town was wrong to fire Gerald Alston, concluding a battle between Alston and the town that has gone on for more than a decade. We get the latest on the SJC ruling from WBUR s Simon Rios.
This segment aired on April 28, 2021.
Judge weighs petitioners request for town-wide vote on $36M Amherst library project
Updated Apr 28, 2021;
NORTHAMPTON A Hampshire Superior Court judge on Wednesday took under advisement a request for an injunction from an Amherst citizen’s group, which seeks seven more days to obtain signatures to force a town-wide vote on the $36.3 million Jones Library project.
During the hour-long hearing, Judge John Agostini questioned whether the court even possess jurisdiction to intervene; the matter involves municipal ordinances and not state laws.
The plaintiffs do not assert local ordinances (or state laws) were violated, rather, that because of the pandemic, the town should have provided some accommodations owing to the myriad COVID-19 social restrictions, and public health imperatives.
On Jan. 4, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling in
Kauders v. Uber Technologies Inc. that has important implications for the enforceability of online and/or app contracts, and the arbitration agreements included in them.[1]
In short, the court concluded that Uber s terms and conditions did not constitute a contract with the plaintiffs, because the app s registration process did not provide users with reasonable notice of the terms and conditions, and did not obtain a clear manifestation of assent to the terms.
In doing so, the court analyzed the features of the Uber app that undercut contract formation, and commented on features that might have worked better. This ruling seems likely to become a notable addition to the burgeoning body of case law addressing how contracts can be formed over the internet.
Massachusetts SJC Rules That Employers May Hold Employees Liable for Violating Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Law Wednesday, April 21, 2021
On April 9, 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that an employee may be liable to his or her employer under the Commonwealth’s unfair and deceptive trade practices statute which authorizes an award of double or treble damages for willful violations, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees for actions that the employee engaged in during the course of his or her employment. In
et al., No. SJC-12948, the Commonwealth’s highest court reversed a trial court’s determination that a jury could not consider actions that the defendant-employees had undertaken during their employment with the plaintiff in evaluating whether they had committed unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the statute by misappropriating their former employer’s research and administrative files. The decision provides em
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On April 9, 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC)
ruled that an employee may be liable to his or her employer under
the Commonwealth s unfair and deceptive trade practices
statute-which authorizes an award of double or treble damages for
willful violations, as well as costs and attorneys fees-for
actions that the employee engaged in during the course of his or
her employment. In
et
al., No. SJC-12948, the Commonwealth s highest court
reversed a trial court s determination that a jury could not
consider actions that the defendant-employees had undertaken during