May 8th, 2008, 7:34 pm
On our employment law blog, Attorney Michael Goldstein has posted a very interesting article regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and how the practice of such has shifted from adults to part-time teenage employees. It demonstrates how retail stores, restaurants and other outlets found in the malls throughout the country need to be more proactive in protecting our nation’s youth from sexual predators.
Below is snippet from the article at our employment law blog:
Employers and supervisors in Massachusetts may not sexually harass their employees by way of either direct or indirect innuendo. Where a supervisor’s conduct has the purpose and effect of unreasonably interfering with employee’s work performance by creating intimidating, hostile, humiliating, and sexually offensive work environment, Massachusetts courts have classified such conduct as sexual harassment. Cardona v. Conn. Car Rental, 20 Mass. L. Rep. 82 (2005). More specifically, under Massachusetts law, it is an unlawful practice for an employer, as defined in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 1(5), to sexually harass any employee. Moreover, Sexual harassment is not limited to any verbal conduct of a sexual nature which is found to interfere unreasonably with an employee’s work performance through the creation of a humiliating or sexually offensive work environment can be sexual harassment under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B. Melnychenko v. 84 Lumber Co., 424 Mass. 285 (1997).
April 18th, 2008, 8:34 pm
Although this blog primarily deals with cyber law and small business issues, many of our readers and subjects of blog articles come from a place where they have amassed immense student loans. As such, one of our attorney’s, Michael Goldstein has drafted a very poignant article on our Massachusetts Bankruptcy Blog detailing, bankruptcy relief from student loans.
March 20th, 2008, 7:49 pm
An attachment is a prejudgment security device available to a creditor seeking to recover money damages and is used to encumber the debtor’s property during the pendency of the lawsuit. Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1. Among the types of property subject to attachments are real property, personal property (including liquor licenses), and property of the debtor in the hands of a third party or trustee.All real and personal property is liable to be taken on execution, except personal property that is specifically exempt from execution or attachment. G.L. c. 223, § 42. Among the types of property exempt from attachment are stocks, bonds, expectations under a will or trust, and receivables.
A creditor secures an attachment of real estate by obtaining a writ of attachment from the court, followed by the timely recording of the writ at the appropriate Registry of Deeds or Land Court (in cases involving registered land). The court may allow an attachment of all the debtor’s real estate in a certain county (general attachment) or it may specify a particular parcel or particular parcels of real estate to be attached (limited attachment).
A personal property attachment also requires court approval of the attachment and return of the writ of attachment by the sheriff. Generally, however, the property is actually seized by the sheriff unless a statute provides otherwise.
To obtain a prejudgment attachment with notice to the debtor, the creditor’s attorney is required to file the following documents:
The granting of an attachment by the court is entirely discretionary. In order to obtain an attachment, the creditor’s attorney must, at the very least, satisfy a three-part test prescribed by Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.1(c). The creditor must show that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits:
March 11th, 2008, 9:30 pm
Brokers at Lehi Mortgage Services Inc. inflated incomes and savings account balances of loan applicants to boost their qualifications, the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court said. The civil suit charges Lehi with engaging in unfair and deceptive practices and fraudulently procuring loans, and it seeks to stop the firm from making new mortgages.
The suit is based on an audit conducted by the Massachusetts Division of Banks of 100 loans the firm closed in 2006 and 2007.
That audit, conducted last fall, determined that at least one in four of the applications contained fake information, according to the lawsuit. The banking division referred the results of its audit to the attorney general’s office.
Lehi Mortgage “engaged in a widespread practice” of submitting false information about bank accounts and incomes that “it knew or should have known were inflated,” the attorney general’s suit said.
Boston lawyer Jonathon Friedmann, who represents Lehi, declined to comment. “We have not seen the suit yet,” he said.
Loan brokers are intermediaries who shop for competing mortgage offers on behalf of borrowers, and they are paid a fee by the lender who wins the business.
The lawsuit is the latest action by state regulators to crack down on subprime mortgage lenders and brokers in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, which has resulted in a near-record number of homeowners in Massachusetts losing their properties and many others facing foreclosure.
In the subprime market, many borrowers purchased homes they could not afford using these expensive loans, and regulators said many applications were falsified. The Division of Banks in recent months has closed several mortgage firms for falsifying mortgage applications or for charging extraordinarily high fees.
At Lehi Mortgage, the state said 23 applications contained inflated or fake bank account statements from Citizens Bank - some of the accounts didn’t exist at all. In three cases, a single Citizens employee in a Dorchester branch created verification of deposit forms, or VODs, with incorrect statements from the bank. Lenders often require these verification forms be submitted with a prospective borrowers’ loan application.
One of the falsified Citizens statements said Lehi’s client had $18,341 in her bank account; in fact, she had $25, the suit said.
Citizens fired the employee in August, the court document said.
Citizens spokesman Michael Jones said the bank is cooperating with the state’s investigation.
Lehi also inflated loan applicants’ incomes, the suit said. In one application, an unnamed borrower earned an annual salary of $29,858. But in two different applications for loans, his income was stated as $63,000 and $55,800.
The suit said the Division of Bank’s audit of Lehi’s activity uncovered 26 problem loan applications out of 100 audited. Lehi also has offices in Mattapan, Lynn, and Dorchester.
February 22nd, 2008, 8:59 pm
Each year millions of Americans file for chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy protection in order to eliminate unsecured debt, including large credit card balances, or in order to stop a foreclosure on their home. What these debtor’s don’t realize, is that not only do they need to put the bankruptcy trustee on notice of their possessions, bank accounts and debts, but they also need to include any potential law suits, including likely suits in the near future in their scheduled and statements. As a business owner, this information can be used to defend a wrongful termination claim, if the employee does not list the employer in their schedules and statements.
More specifically, if an employee fails to list any contingent claims of value, the claim can be dismissed. A Federal court recently held in Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, an employee is prohibited from omitting a discrimination claim from her bankruptcy petition and then trying to bring it after having her debts discharged. The courts reasoning was that if debtors with possible employment claims might be encouraged to “scam” their creditors by keeping those claims hidden.
The bottom line for small business owners is that you always want to check into employee’s financial affairs as part of your litigation strategy in defending claims for wrongful termination.
