MRW Online

Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education recently held a program on “Proving and Valuing Damages in Employment Cases.”  Intended for both employee and management counsel, the program focused on strategies and theories for maximizing, and defending against, damages in employment cases.  Dahlia Rudavsky served on the program faculty along with a Superior Court Judge, an MCAD Hearing Officer, a mediator and other leading employment lawyers.  Ms. Rudavsky specifically presented on three topics: (1) “How to Value a New Case and Identify Claims that Have Potential for High Awards/Exposure,” (2) “Whether and How to Effectively Use Financial or Medical Experts at Trial, at the MCAD, or in Mediation,” and (3) “Whether and When Spousal Testimony Is an Effective Way to Prove Emotional Distress Injury and What Are Other Effective Strategies for Proving Emotional Distress.”

To read more about the program, click here.

On December 24, 2012, Superior Court Judge S. Jane Haggerty entered final judgment for Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky’s client, Kimberly Schive, in her 13-year-old retaliation case against her former employer, Psy-Ed Corporation.  In the lawsuit, Psy-Ed had sued Ms. Schive after she filed an MCAD complaint alleging disability discrimination.  Ms. Schive counterclaimed, saying that Psy-Ed had sued to punish her for bringing MCAD claims.

Ms. Schive won on her counterclaims in a bench trial in 2006, but the employer appealed.  The case went up to Massachusetts’ highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court.  In May 2011, the SJC ruled in favor of Schive, holding the employer liable for unlawful retaliation, and sent the case back to the lower court for adjustment of the judgment.  Along the way, Ms. Schive’s case established important new law about the scope of retaliation claims in Massachusetts.  Most important, the SJC held that former employees as well as current employees are protected under the law from acts of retaliation by their employers.

The remand has finally ended, after a number of unsuccessful challenges by Psy-Ed’s corporate successor.

Ms. Schive’s long ordeal is hopefully over, nearly thirteen years after it began.  Future plaintiffs in retaliation cases will benefit for the long battle Ms. Schive has now won.

The partners of Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky have recently updated three of their written contributions to the popular series of practice manuals published by Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).  Updated frequently, MCLE’s authoritative practice manuals are written by the state’s most trusted lawyers.  Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky’s partners have authored or co-authored several chapters appearing in the practice manuals, three of which are to be published this year in updated form.

Ellen Messing recently updated a chapter section titled “Employment Contracts: Employee Perspective,” planned for publication in the 2013 supplement to Massachusetts Employment Law, Third Edition.

Also planned for publication in the 2013 supplement to Massachusetts Employment Law, Third Edition, Dahlia Rudavsky, James Weliky and a third co-author are currently preparing an update to their chapter on “Gender Discrimination.”

Finally, James Weliky and Ellen Messing have updated their chapter on “Drafting Severance Documents: a Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Perspective,” which will appear in the 2013 supplement to Drafting Employment Documents in Massachusetts, Second Edition.

Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky, P.C. is proud to be ranked in “Tier 1” of Boston labor and employment litigation firms in the 2013 Edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers.  The Best Lawyers rankings, published by U.S. News and World Report, are based on evaluations submitted by both lawyers and legal consumers in areas including the firm’s expertise, responsiveness and cost-effectiveness.  To read more about the rankings themselves, and their methodology, please visit the U.S. News – Best Lawyers website.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently handed down a victory for civil rights plaintiffs and attorneys in their ruling in Diaz v. Jilten Hotel Management, Inc. (Docket No. 11-2400, September 18, 2012).  The case, brought by a hotel employee alleging age discrimination, was appealed by the plaintiff claiming the trial court erred in calculating an award of attorneys’ fees.  Recognizing that awards of attorneys’ fees constitute an important incentive encouraging attorneys to accept civil rights cases, the Court of Appeals ruled the trial court judge improperly reduced the attorneys’ fees award by giving undue emphasis to plaintiff’s refusal of a pre-trial settlement offer.

The plaintiff/appellant’s appeal was supported by an amicus brief co-authored by Ellen Messing, James Weliky and other prominent civil rights lawyers.  Much of the reasoning employed in the amicus brief was adopted in the Court of Appeals’ ruling.  The full text of the amicus brief can be found here.

Additionally, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly quoted Ellen Messing in their coverage of the ruling.  Their article can be found here.