Restaurant Manager Prevails (again*)

Attorney Murphy is pleased with a recent decision by the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (“DUA”) affirming unemployment benefits for his client, a former restaurant manager of major seafood restaurant chain based in Boston.  Attorney Murphy represented the manager at 2 separate unemployment hearings because the unemployment office lost the evidence from the first hearing.  Thus, Attorney Murphy’s client was required to appear at a second de novo hearing despite prevailing at the first hearing.  This was extremely frustrating for Attorney Murphy’s client, to say the least.

At the first hearing, Attorney Murphy successfully established that his client did nothing wrong despite the employer’s allegations that the client violated company policy by serving alcohol to an intoxicated guest.  The client prevailed at the first hearing because the employer failed to prove Attorney Murphy’s client was actually aware that the guest was intoxicated.

*At the second de novo hearing, the employer brought its lawyer and an additional witness, a bartender who worked on the evening at issue.  Again, the employer argued that Attorney Murphy’s client violated company policy by allowing a guest to be served after being shut-off by one of the bartenders.  Then the employer called the bartender who testified Attorney Murphy’s client served an intoxicated guest after being shut off.  Attorney Murphy then cross-examined the bartender who admitted he was paid to testify at the hearing.  Attorney Murphy then questioned the bartender about the time-line of events.  The bartender’s answers were inconsistent, and ultimately the unemployment hearing examiner determined that the bartender was not credible.  Further, the hearing examiner determined that the employer’s evidence simply could not prove the bar manager did anything wrong.

Accordingly, the bartender prevailed again and is now receiving unemployment benefits.

Attorney Murphy understands that from a business point of view the employer in this case believed it was necessary to contest the bar manager’s eligibility for unemployment benefits; but, unfortunately, the employer failed to understand the purpose of unemployment law: to assist individuals who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Thus, the unemployment law contains strict requirements and employers should be well-advised to understand the law before wasting time and resources contesting claims.

Posted in Employment Law | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

100k Judgment Secured

Recently, Attorney Murphy secured a $100,992.00 judgment in favor of his client in a non-payment of wages case.  At issue was whether the employer paid the client, a laborer, prevailing wages and wages due upon his termination.  The evidence overwhelmingly favored Attorney Murphy’s client and the court granted treble damages, costs, and attorney fees.  Superior Court docket no: 15-2056G.

Attorney Murphy represented his client in this private right of action case which allows payment of client’s attorneys fees to be paid by employers should they be found liable.

Posted in Employment Law | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

No Call No Show Can Result in Unemployment Benefits

Recently, the unemployment office issued a decision upholding its initial determination that Attorney Murphy’s client was entitled to receive unemployment benefits. The client’s former employer appealed the determination stating the client quit her job by virtue of a “no-call, no show”.  The client’s position was that her employer fired her.  Attorney Murphy prepared his client for the hearing such that it was readily apparent she was a credible and honest individual; and cross-examined the employer at the hearing such that it was apparent the employer’s testimony and evidence failed to support their position.  Indeed, the review examiner found the employer could not establish that Attorney Murphy’s client intentionally quit her job and applied Section 25(e)(2) rather than Section 25(e)(1) of the Massachusetts Unemployment Law.

Attorney Murphy notes that unless employers have an overwhelmingly amount of evidence to support that an employee quit through a “no-call, no show” employers face an uphill battle.  Further, employers using agencies to handle these type of matters are not fairing any better; arguably, agencies are putting employers in worse positions which greatly helped Attorney Murphy’s client in this case.

Posted in Employment Law | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pro Bono Honoree

Attorney For the Day table in Boston’s Housing Court.For the second consecutive year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized The Law Office of Justin M. Murphy “for performing in the finest tradition of the Massachusetts bar by providing significant pro bono legal services during calendar year 2014.”  Attorney Murphy celebrated by volunteering on October 29, 2015, at the Attorney For the Day table in Boston’s Housing Court.  Providing individuals pro bono legal representation is paramount to Attorney Murphy’s law practice and benefits his clients, overall.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Recovering Security Deposit

Massachusetts’ residential security deposit law contains strict requirements for landlords, including returning a tenant’s security deposit within 30 days of lease termination.  As a landlord or tenant you should know your rights and options when dealing with General Laws: CHAPTER 186, Section 15B, the Massachusetts Security Deposit law.  Remedies include double or treble damages, all costs, and payment of attorney fees should a tenant prevail.  Attorney Murphy provides pro bono legal services to recover security deposits.

Posted in Landlord-Tenant | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trial Success: Landlord’s Right to Possession Secured

Recently, Attorney Murphy represented a landlord at trial in the Boston Housing Court. Attorney Murphy counseled the landlord through the eviction process and secured the landlord’s right to possession as well as back rent.

Originally, the landlord attempted to evict the tenant without knowing the requisite steps to do so. The landlord nearly caused the case to be dismissed, but Attorney Murphy quickly corrected the deficiencies without issue. Housing Court Docket no.: 15H84SP002142.

Posted in Landlord-Tenant | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Bank Employee Prevails

Recently, Attorney Murphy’s client, a former senior personal banker, received a favorable unemployment benefits decision. The unemployment office initially denied the claim because the former employer alleged the client committed misconduct. Attorney Murphy, however, established through direct and cross examination at the unemployment hearing that the employer could not prove the client actually committed the conduct at issue. The supervisor essentially admitted he did not take any immediate corrective action. Thus, Attorney Murphy harped on this lapse of disciplinary action to discredit the employer’s case such that the unemployment office found the client more credible, and ruled in favor of the client.

Attorney Murphy notes that micromanagement of employees can lead to unwarranted and unnecessary terminations because like in this case, the supervisor failed to understand the big picture: the company lost a loyal and hard-working employee.

Posted in Employment Law | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Attorney Murphy Successfully Argues Motion for Reconsideration

On March 4, 2015, Attorney Murphy persuaded the Cambridge District Court to vacate its order issuing an “execution” against his client, a tenant, for violating an “agreement for judgment”.  Prior to retaining Attorney Murphy, the client and her former landlord entered into an agreement for judgment in lieu of a costly eviction trial.  The landlord then filed a motion for issuance of the execution alleging that the client breached the agreement for judgment.  The court agreed with the landlord and found the client in breach of the agreement.

The client was dismayed by the process, particularly where she now had a judgment against her.

The client then retained Attorney Murphy.  Attorney Murphy drafted a motion to reconsider the issuance of the execution.  Typically, motions to reconsider are never granted.  Attorney Murphy, however, persuaded the court that for purposes of justice and equity, the landlord’s motion should never have been issued in the first place.  The court agreed.

Attorney Murphy’s understanding of the balance between law and equity was paramount to his client’s success in this matter.  Attorney Murphy would urge any landlord or tenant to seek assistance of counsel when dealing with motions for reconsideration because courts will only reverse their orders when exceptional circumstances are present.

Posted in Landlord-Tenant | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Human Resource Manager Vindicated

Recently, Attorney Murphy’s client, former human resources manager of a reputable k-12 mathematics program, received a favorable decision after a highly contentious unemployment hearing.  The unemployment office initially denied the client’s claim stating that the client resigned because he disagreed with work policies or the method of operations of the employer.  As such, the unemployment office determined that this was the client’s fault and denied his claim. The client appealed.

The client then retained Attorney Murphy. Attorney Murphy advised the client that there were several complicated issues to overcome.  Specifically, Attorney Murphy found that in order to reverse the decision it must be established that the employer’s actions caused the client to resign.

At the unemployment hearing, Attorney Murphy quickly took aim at the employer’s alleged adverse treatment of his client.  Attorney Murphy’s aggressive, unyielding cross-examination resulted in inconsistent testimony from the employer.  Compared to the client’s consistent and credible testimony it became apparent there were major holes in the employer’s case.  Finally, the unemployment office concluded that the client made every effort to preserve his job and that essentially, the client resigned with good cause attributable to the employer.

Attorney Murphy is very pleased with the outcome of this case.  The client felt vindicated and is now able to move forward knowing the resignation was not his fault.

Posted in Employment Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Independant Contractors May Have “Employee” Rights

Attorney Murphy has been working on several employment cases that are game changing for his clients.  These cases mostly involve misclassification of individuals as “independent contractors”.  Unfortunately, as independent contractors these individuals previously believed they did not have standing to bring lawsuits against their employer for discrimination, wage and hour violations, breach of privacy, among other employment claims.  Upon further investigation, however, Attorney Murphy determined these individuals were arguably misclassified in violation of Massachusetts law.  Instead, Attorney Murphy asserts these individuals constitute “employees” for purposes of Massachusetts employment law.  This change in classification opens a barrage of available claims to his clients seeking redress for wrongs committed in the workplace.

Posted in Employment Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment