» Eastern

Posts tagged "Eastern"

Casseus, et al. v. Eastern Bus Company, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-024-18)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12315 IBNER CASSEUS[1] & another[2] vs. EASTERN BUS COMPANY, INC., & another.[3] Middlesex. October 2, 2017. – February 8, 2018. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. Labor, Overtime compensation. Bus. Carrier, Charter service, License. School and School Committee, Transportation of students. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 30, 2014. Motions for summary judgment were heard by Dennis J. Curran, J. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Gabrielle R. Wolohojian, J., in the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Damien M. DiGiovanni (Joseph P. McConnell also present) for the defendants. Ian O. Russell for the plaintiffs. Peter J. Pingitore, for School Transportation Association of Massachusetts, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. This case requires us to construe an exemption to the Massachusetts overtime statute. The overtime statute generally requires employers to pay an overtime premium to employees who work more than forty hours in a given week. G. L. c. 151, § 1A. The statute, however, “shall not be applicable to any employee who is employed . . . by an employer licensed and regulated pursuant to [G. L. c. 159A],” which governs motor vehicle common carriers of passengers in Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 151, § 1A (11); G. L. c. 159A. The plaintiffs are bus drivers whose employer, the defendant Eastern Bus Company, Inc. (Eastern Bus), provides two types of transportation: charter service, for which Eastern Bus must hold a license under the common carrier statute; and transportation of pupils between home and school, which does not constitute charter service. See G. L. c. 159A, § 11A. The bus drivers perform both of these services. They claim that they are entitled to overtime payment. Their argument is twofold. The bus drivers first assert that Eastern Bus is only “licensed and regulated” under the common carrier statute during the hours when it is providing charter service. The exemption, then, only applies during those hours, and not when Eastern Bus is providing school transportation. The bus drivers further argue that this overtime exemption should be interpreted in the same manner as two similarly structured Federal overtime exemptions. These Federal exemptions, for certain employees of air and rail common carriers, are not applied to employees who spend a substantial […]

Taylor, et al. v. Eastern Connection Operating, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-088-13)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11222 JUDITH ANN TAYLOR & others[1] vs. EASTERN CONNECTION OPERATING, INC. Middlesex. January 8, 2013. ‑ May 17, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Contract, Employment, Choice of forum clause, Choice of law clause. Practice, Civil, Choice of forum, Motion to dismiss. Conflict of Laws. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 19, 2010. A motion to dismiss was heard by Dennis J. Curran, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Shannon Liss-Riordan (James W. Simpson, Jr., with her) for the plaintiffs. Robert R. Berluti for the defendant. Danielle Y. Vanderzanden, for National Federation of Independent Business Small Business legal Center, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Audrey R. Richardson, for Brazilian Immigrant Center & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. The question presented in this case is whether, in the circumstances, individuals who live and work outside of Massachusetts for a corporation headquartered in Massachusetts may bring an action in a Massachusetts court to enforce certain Massachusetts independent contractor, wage, and overtime pay statutes. Insofar as the written contract between the parties contains an enforceable clause requiring both that actions be brought in Massachusetts and that the “Contract and all rights and obligations of the parties” be determined under Massachusetts law, and where application of Massachusetts law is not contrary to a fundamental policy of the jurisdiction where the individuals live and work, we conclude that it was error to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.[2] 1. Background. We recite the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting as true such facts, as well as any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (1), (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974); Ginther v. Commissioner of Ins., 427 Mass. 319, 322 (1998). The plaintiffs, Judith Ann Taylor, Gardner Taylor, and Donald Wellington, are individuals who live in New York and work there as couriers for the defendant, Eastern Connection Operating, Inc., a corporation headquartered in Woburn, Massachusetts. The defendant is in the business of delivering packages in various States along the East Coast, including Massachusetts and New York. The plaintiffs entered into identical contracts (collectively, the contract) with the defendant to perform package pickup and delivery services exclusively in […]