Segal Roitman LLP | News

CASES

Individuals
At Segal Roitman LLP we recognize that the creative and mutually acceptable resolution is often times more in the interest of our clients than litigation. We have had a good track record in obtaining substantial, fair, out-of-court resolution of cases for many of our clients. When the offer is not what the client deserves, we go to trial. Here are some examples of cases we have litigated over the years, some of which settled, and some of which went to jury verdict.

Segal Roitman recently obtained a decision of nationwide significance interpreting the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act. In the case, U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock ruled that contractors and subcontractors to publicly traded companies are prohibited from retaliating against their employees who engage in protected whistle blowing activity. The decision is particularly critical in the mutual fund industry, where mutual funds typically have no employees but hire investment advisors and other companies to conduct their business. The Sarbanes Oxley whistleblower provisions were enacted following the Enron scandal because of the critical importance to the public of whistle blowing by employees, and the need for protection for such employees from retaliation by their employers.
In March of 2008 the First Circuit Court of Appeals in March overturned a trial judge decision ruling that a Deputy U.S. Marshall did not suffer gender discrimination and retaliation. According to the trial judge, an employer may punish an employee for filing a discrimination complaint if the retaliation is motivated by a desire to punish disloyalty. The First Circuit reversed, holding that, as a matter of law, the filing of a discrimination complaint is not an act of disloyalty and ordered a new trial. DeCaire v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008). The case was retried in June, 2008. The jury found that the Marshall had retaliated against the Deputy for filing a discrimination claim, and awarded her over half a million dollars in damages, fees, and costs.
Together with Greater Boston Legal Services, Segal Roitman filed suit in federal court and obtained a substantial settlement for a class of approximately 200 immigrant workers denied severance benefits under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining and Notification ("WARN") Act.
Segal Roitman obtained a $600,000.00 settlement for a police officer who was sexually assaulted and subsequently threatened by her commanding officer. This was at the time (and may still be) the largest voluntary settlement in MCAD history.

Unions
Segal Roitman has represented labor organizations in a variety of contexts since its inception. Some illustrative cases include:

Segal Roitman filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of the Massachusetts Building Trades Council and the Foundation for Fair Contracting of Massachusetts in Brasi Develop. Corp. v. Attorney General, SJC-10527, arguing against allowing public agencies to evade the requirements of the state public bidding laws.
SEIU Local 888 is the first union in Massachusetts to certify a private-sector bargaining unit under the state’s new Written Majority Authorization law. The law, which took effect in December 2007, allows workers to form a union if a majority of workers sign union authorization cards. Once the majority has made its decision by signing cards, there is usually no need for an election, and the Massachusetts Division of Labor Relations promptly certifies the bargaining unit. The new law applies to public sector employees and employees who work for very small private employers that are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act.
In the early 1990’s Segal Roitman assisted in negotiating the Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) for the Big Dig. Non-union contractors sued, and the validity of the PLA was upheld by the District Court. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in a rare 9-0 unanimous opinion upholding the validity of the PLA. Building and Construction Trades of the Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors, U.S. (1994).

Since that time literally thousands of PLAs have proliferated across the country. Most recently, challenges have been made to PLAs under state bidding laws. Segal Roitman just recently successfully defended one of these challenges to the City of Fall River’s plans for building several schools under a PLA. Grasseschi Heating and Plumbing v. City of Fall River, Mass. Appeals Court No. 2005- J – 633 (January 20, 2006).
A union local pressed NLRB charges related to a construction employer’s conduct during a union organizing campaign. The NLRB General Counsel issued a Complaint alleging that the Company unlawfully resisted the organizing efforts with wide-spread threats, interrogation of workers, and discriminatory discharges. Segal Roitman obtained an ALJ Decision ordering that all eleven (11) alleged discriminatees (including “salts”) be reinstated with full back-pay and that twenty-one (21) previous applicants be given proper consideration for future job openings at the Company. C. Spirito, Inc. (International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 4 AFL-CIO), (JD–72-05, September 2005).
A cleaning contractor was recently ordered by an arbitrator to reinstate with full back pay a shop steward who was fired for swearing at a supervisor. Among the issues in the arbitration was the precise meaning and translation of common Spanish language slang.
In Board of Trustees v. University of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 225 (2002), the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission found that undergraduate Resident Assistants were employees. This was the first public sector case of its kind in the United States, and made it possible for these RAs to form a union. They are currently working under a collective bargaining agreement at their University.
A union represented workers at an electric utility whose workforce seemed to be steadily declining. The Union believed the decline was taking place because of continual increases in outsourcing to lower wage subcontractors. Segal Roitman helped design comprehensive demands for long-term data on outsourcing, sufficient to determine whether the outsourcing violated the company’s union contract. When the Company refused to provide complete and clear data, Segal Roitman obtained an NLRB Decision and Order compelling the Company to turn over broad-based data on subcontracting, and successfully resisted the company’s appeal to the federal court of appeals, obtaining a court order against the Company to provide its outsourcing data. West Penn Power Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 394 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005).
A union contractor sued Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 (and other Sheet Metal Workers affiliates including the International) under the Clayton Anti Trust Act, the Labor Management Relations Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. Segal Roitman successfully defended Local 17 in an eight-week trial before a jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Limback Co. v. SMWIA, 949 F.2d 1211 (3d Cir. 1991).
Segal Roitman defended a union official against LMRDA and ERISA claims brought by a fellow union official. A federal jury in Boston returned a verdict in favor of the union official Lennon v. Walsh, 798 F.Supp. 845 (D. Mass. 1992).

Employee Benefits
Segal Roitman also represents a number of multi-employer benefit funds for purposes of collecting fringe benefit contributions owed by delinquent employers. In pursuit of monies owed, the firm has filed hundreds of successful lawsuits in state and federal courts. It has filed successful surety bond and mechanics’ lien claims, Davis Bacon Act and arbitration claims. It has also pursued collection through employers’ bankruptcy proceedings. Our ability to resolve these claims short of trial have saved our clients considerable expense and our efforts have resulted in the collection of millions of dollars in contributions, interest and fees for our clients. Examples of our work follow:

Segal Roitman was retained by Funds to collect fringe benefit contributions owed by a delinquent employer. Segal Roitman filed suit, attached $523,510.06 in the employer’s bank account, and collected all delinquent contributions, interest and fees. Ronald Alman, as he is Trustee v. Revelation Bra Co., Inc. d/b/a Goddess Bra Co., Inc., C.A. 99-10499 NG (D. Mass.).
Segal Roitman filed suit against a delinquent employer and its alter ego and collected $163,929.57, representing payment in full of the unpaid fringe benefit contributions, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. Paul J. McNally, as he is Trustee, et al v. ABM Co. of Boston, Inc. and American Building Maintenance Co. of New York, C.A. No. 01-12309 GAO (D. Mass).
A New Hampshire employer filed first reorganization proceedings, then liquidation proceedings in bankruptcy court in New Hampshire, leaving scores of workers without health insurance. Some of these workers had incurred claims over one hundred thousands of dollars. Segal Roitman worked with the Trustee in bankruptcy, the US Trustees’ office, debtors counsel and the creditors committee to ensure that all medical claims were paid in full by the group purchasing the assets of the corporation. In re Spaulding Composites, No. (U.S.B.C.N.H.).