Issue Preclusion in Federal Action

August 16, 2023

Where a plaintiff brought suit alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the minimum wage law, it was premature for the complaint to be dismissed despite the defendants’ argument that principles of issue preclusion foreclosed the plaintiff’s claim that he was an employee of Montachusetts Regional Transit Authority.



In July 2021, the plaintiff, Paul Jones, brought this action in the Superior Court alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, and the minimum wage law, G.L.c. 151 (wage statutes), by Montachusetts Regional Transit Authority, as his employer, and the individual defendants, as the employer’s ‘agents’ (collectively, MART). The plaintiff alleged that MART misclassified him as an independent contractor when he was actually MART’s employee, and by doing so, deprived him of certain financial benefits. MART moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint arguing, inter alia, that principles of issue preclusion foreclosed the plaintiff’s claim that he was MART’s employee. Because we conclude that the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was premature, we vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings.


In May 2019, the plaintiff filed an action against MART in Federal court alleging, inter alia, employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and G.L.c. 151B, §4 (Federal action). In July 2021, MART moved for summary judgment in the Federal action on the employment discrimination claims on the basis that the plaintiff was not its employee. A Federal judge agreed and granted MART’s motion.


MART’s issue preclusion argument relies on the Federal judge’s determination that for the purposes of both Title VII and G.L.c. 151B, MART established on summary judgment that it was not the plaintiff’s employer. While the court acknowledged that the plaintiff’s employment status with respect to MART was, as MART argues, an element of both the plaintiff’s Federal court claim and his claims in the Superior Court action at issue in this appeal, the court concluded that issue preclusion was not a proper basis on which to dismiss the plaintiff’s Superior Court claims.


Because the plaintiff’s burden was higher in the Federal action, and the burden shifted to MART in the later Superior Court action, application of issue preclusion was erroneous.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. 

Brandon Calton admitted to the United States District Court of Connecticut

June 10, 2025
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.

Federal Court Vacates EEOC’s “Abortion Accommodation Mandate” in PWFA

By Heather Child • June 9, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck down a provision in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Background Information: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in December 2022, and it became effective in June 2023. The law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants or employees who have physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. In April 2024, The EEOC issued its final interpretation of the PWFA including abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions” thereby requiring employers to provide accommodations related to abortion. In May 2024, the states of Mississippi and Louisiana sued the EEOC, arguing that the interpretation conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and their respective state laws on abortion. In June 2024, Judge Joseph found that the EEOC exceeded its authority and issued a preliminary injunction postponing the effective date of the interpretation to provide accommodation for elective abortions until final judgment was entered in this matter. The final judgment was entered on May 21, 2025, that remanded the matter to the EEOC to revise the final rule and all related implementing regulations and guidances. Employer Takeaways: While employers are no longer (as of now) REQUIRED to provide accommodation for elective abortions, the remainder of the PWFA remains in full effect The decision to have or not have an abortion remains protected under Title VII The PWFA does not supersede state or local laws providing greater protection for pregnant workers. It is important to stay up to date on state regulations to ensure employers are complying with state laws. While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation.  If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.