Click here for article.

Click here for radio interview podcast.

Of course, if you’re experiencing sexual harassment or any other issues in the workplace, give us a call.

Gordon Interviewed About Matt Lauer Termination: Insights on Workplace Harassment and Employment Law

In a recent interview, Gordon of Gordon Law Group provided expert legal analysis and commentary on the highly publicized Matt Lauer termination case, a situation that garnered national attention due to allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct. Lauer, the former NBC Today Show anchor, was dismissed in 2017 after accusations surfaced that he had engaged in inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues. Gordon’s insights shed light on the legal implications of such high-profile terminations and what both employees and employers can learn from this case in terms of workplace harassment, legal protections, and the termination process.

Key Takeaways from Gordon’s Interview on Matt Lauer’s Termination

In the interview, Gordon addressed several critical issues related to Matt Lauer’s termination and the broader implications for workplace dynamics, particularly when it comes to harassment allegations in the workplace. Some of the key points Gordon made include:

1. Legal Protections Against Workplace Harassment: Lauer’s termination highlights the importance of employers creating a safe work environment that is free from harassment. Gordon emphasized that, under both federal and state laws, employees have a right to work in an environment where they are not subjected to discrimination or harassment based on gender, race, or any other protected status. Employers who fail to address complaints effectively may face serious legal consequences, as seen in the high-profile cases involving public figures like Lauer.
2. The Importance of Clear Workplace Policies: Gordon noted that one of the biggest takeaways from the Matt Lauer case is the necessity of clear, enforced workplace policies around harassment, reporting mechanisms, and the consequences of misconduct. He pointed out that while NBC initially dismissed Lauer following the allegations, their failure to publicly disclose their investigative process led to questions about the transparency and fairness of the decision-making process. Employers must ensure that policies are in place that not only address what constitutes harassment but also provide a clear path for employees to report concerns without fear of retaliation.
3. Employment Contracts and Termination Clauses: As part of the discussion, Gordon addressed the legal aspects of termination clauses and severance agreements, which play a key role in cases like Lauer’s. He explained that many employees, especially high-profile individuals, have negotiated severance packages that include terms about public disclosures and non-compete clauses. In Lauer’s case, NBC and the former anchor likely had legal agreements in place that governed his departure, highlighting the importance of understanding one’s employment contract and rights when facing potential termination.

The segment, published by FOX News, focused on the story Man Loses Job Opportunity After Threatening Remarks on Dating App, where a job applicant’s online activity, interpreted as a threatening remark, resulted in application exclusion before any formal hiring-stage risk assessment or structured dialogue took place.

Heinrich interviewed Gordon for insight on how hiring teams manage workplace applicant interpretation risks when reviewing online activity, reputation framing exposures, recruitment compliance chains, and disputed-policy defensibility when applicant online threats appear during screening.

What the Segment Explained

Philip Gordon highlighted that online threats workplace job applicant screening risks arise from overlapping employment law concerns, including:

• How applicant remarks are interpreted without structured evidence governance
• Whether the remark directly signals a workplace safety necessity
• Retaliation-risk potential tied to applicant complaint or inquiry patterns
• Lack of transparency in multi-platform hiring screening documentation chains
• Employer duty to apply consistent, non-discriminatory interpretation frameworks
• Potential profile evidence delivery gaps if documentation isn’t preserved

Why Online Screening is Fragile in Court

Hiring-screening cases increasingly face scrutiny when online activity is introduced, because courts examine:

1. Interpretation governance — comments must be screened under a consistent risk-review framework, not informal moral framing.
2. Reputation or conduct evidence durability — employers must document business necessity, not public reaction logic.
3. Retaliation interpretation — if an applicant challenges screening fairness, employers cannot apply punishment measures outside documented policy limits.
4. Safety justification — hiring exclusion must connect clearly to job duties, not general online conduct criticism.
5. Hiring process transparency failures — courts penalize employers who cannot trace screening evidence logic or preserve proof.

Delivery drivers, interns, contractors, executives, and job applicants reviewed under informal online checks may all fall into evidence analysis collapse if screening policies are undocumented.

A link to that story is included here (View Video): Let me know your thoughts.

The Class Actions Labor Employment Law panel Philip Gordon session explored how multi-claim workforce cases are reshaping labor law discourse, statutory interpretation, hiring-framework compliance architecture, evidence-chain defensibility, and retaliation-risk governance in employee pay and protected-class claims.

Core Themes Covered in the Panel

The panel analyzed legal questions including:

• Whether class action waivers interfere with labor rights protections
• How arbitration clauses may restrict collective remedies
• Retaliation doctrine when employees engage in protected, concerted activity
• Burden-shifting frameworks when corporate records lack transparency
• Subsidiary or contractor chains that fragment employer accountability
• Documentation duties that preserve claim-evidence durability
• Public-policy pressure to reform pay-accountability gaps

Philip Gordon emphasized that class litigation isn’t only about verdict size — it’s about whether companies and municipalities are able to trace and justify hiring or pay decisions through durable legal frameworks. Courts increasingly examine evidence pathways, motive records, retaliation risk, policy durability, and statutory structural fairness.

Why Class Actions Law is a Pivotal Issue Today

Workforce class actions carry higher legal complexity than individual disputes because they involve:

1. System-wide governance, not single claims
2. Economic damages at scale
3. Public and institutional accountability
4. Shifting ideology around arbitration and collective rights

The 37th Annual Labor and Employment Law Spring Conference panel Philip Gordon helped frame these discussions for both worker advocates and employer counsel, underlining that hiring documentation and pay-compliance architecture must survive litigation scrutiny.

Philip Gordon Co-Chairs the panel on class actions at the 37th Annual Labor and Employment Law Spring Conference of Massachusetts Bar Association on May 6, 2016 (View Article)

A recent industry discussion highlighted by Big Data research shows that employers increasingly rely on predictive insight without fully evaluating whether those insights disadvantage protected groups—particularly disabled employees and applicants.

What Is Workplace Discrimination at Its Core?

Discrimination happens when a current known characteristic—like age, race, gender, religion, disability, or national origin—is used to treat someone worse than others in hiring, pay, promotions, work assignments, or termination decisions. Historically, even the most serious employment discrimination cases were limited by lack of mass data. But big data introduces something entirely new:

• Predictive analytics
• Automated risk-based hiring models
• Health behavior inference from consumer data
• HR employee profiling without direct medical disclosure

Today, employers may infer health and disability risk not only from genetics but also from:

• Online searches
• Consumer purchase history
• Credit and financial behavior
• Pharmacy and insurance claim trends
• Lifetime digital activity patterns

If this data is paired with HR-held pharmacy reports or insurance records, companies may claim they are measuring “risk.” However, legal challenges often argue that inferred health risk becomes de facto disability discrimination when it influences hiring choices.

Why Predictive Analytics Can Become a Legal Trap

Predictive analytics can estimate future health needs, surgery likelihood, pregnancy risk, or chronic illness probability. But the problem is that predictions do not prove a worker cannot perform a job today. Using algorithmic assumptions to deny opportunity may:

• Violate anti-discrimination statutes
• Create disparate impact liability
• Trigger regulatory inquiries
• Invite class-action challenges against employers

It remains unclear how companies will ultimately apply predictive health data. Yet, the economic incentives for risk-based screening make misuse extremely likely unless companies adopt compliance safeguards.

How Employers Can Protect Themselves from Liability

Many leading companies now attempt to offset liability using structured compliance programs including:

• Third-party algorithmic bias audits
• Transparent documentation on hiring criteria
• Elimination of inferred-health factors in “green-lighting” candidates
• Legal review of HR analytics
• Human override processes (not only automation)
• Regular policy corrections for disability compliance

The Wall Street Journal and Fortune published articles about the problem this week, and it deserves attention. I’ve included a link to the Fortune article here (Fortune Article), as it is not behind a paywall, although the WSJ article was on point, too. Let me know your thoughts.

I’ve also posted this on Facebook (here), if you’d like to interact with us there.

The 2015 conference brought together attorneys, policymakers, HR professionals, and workforce advocates from around the country. Its agenda focused on emerging trends in arbitration policy, wage protection frameworks, disability bias, hiring analytics, joint employer liability, and structured compliance innovations shaping the modern workplace.

Topics Covered by Philip Gordon on the 2015 Faculty Panel

At the conference, Philip Gordon contributed legal instruction and commentary on issues including:

• Overtime exemption standards for service-oriented automotive roles
• Arbitration clause enforcement disputes rising across jurisdictions
• Minimum wage policy alignment and overtime pay obligations
• Joint employment liability in horizontal and vertical contracting structures
• Algorithmic hiring bias impacting disability discrimination risk
• Employee rights for pay equity, retaliation claims, and contract exit protections

These discussions reflected the national divide between employers seeking predictable contract enforcement and employees pressing for collective legal access. Faculty panels reiterated that worker classification and contract exit terms often overshadow “intent” – because liability frequently stems from structure and impact.

Why Philip Gordon’s Faculty Role Matters for Employers and Workers

The 2015 session carried heightened importance because workplace law was shifting away from generalized agency handbooks and toward job-duty-specific analysis. Courts increasingly scrutinized whether roles engage directly in vehicle servicing or primarily sell services to consumers – blurring traditional exemption boundaries. At same time, employer reliance on outdated wage credits and informal promotional networks was fueling widespread pay challenges.

The faculty panel also emphasized that organizations were now investing in more defensible compliance and hiring frameworks, such as:

• Independent algorithmic bias audits
• Transparent compensation benchmarking
• Human override processes in automated screening
• Documented reasoning for overtime exemption determinations
• Formalized salary and promotion criteria

These evolving systems were viewed as safeguards to reduce exposure in wage-and-hour and discrimination case development.

Philip served on the Faculty for the “18th Annual Employment Law Conference,” Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (December 4, 2015) (View Article)

The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore. The plaintiff claimed that defendant provided a hostile work environment and also unlawfully retaliated against her under Title VII.  The defendants requested a summary judgment from the court, asserting that there was no valid legal controversy. The court agreed with the defendants and granted the summary judgment, which dismissed the case.

The plaintiff appealed to the 4^th Circuit court, which initially affirmed the summary judgment. However, a subsequent en banc panel overturned the summary judgment on the issue of a hostile environment, as well as the retaliation claim.

In the 12-3 opinion, the court held that:

• One incident of harassment can be sufficient to create a hostile work environment if it is “extremely serious.”  The determination of whether the incident meets this level is a question for the trier of fact.
• Retaliation protection exists for the report of an isolated event if, at the time of reporting, the employee “reasonably believes that a hostile work environment is in progress.”

This ruling is a win for employees dealing with harassing behavior in the workplace.  This relaxation of the retaliation standard opens the door for negatively impacted workers to receive the compensation they deserve.

If you have concerns about retaliation in the workplace, contact our attorneys today for professional assistance.

Pay Comparisons Through the Years

• In 1963, women generally made 59 cents for every dollar made by men.
• President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal pay Act into law.
• In 2013, women generally made 78 cents for every dollar made my men.
• In 2014, women generally made 82.5 percent for every dollar made by men, according to Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Though it appears that the gap is steadily closing, analysts say that progress slowed substantially over the last decade.

Pay Statistics

• Men earn more than their female counterparts at every income level.
• At the highest income levels, the gap is considerably larger with women in the 95^th income percentile earning 79% less than their male counterparts.
• Even at the lowest income levels, where minimum wage is the basic gauge, women earn 91 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts.
• Among college graduates, women statistically earn 80% of the what males earn.
• Among workers with advanced degrees, women statistically earn 74% of what males earn.

Organizers of Equal Pay Day ask supporters to wear red symbolizing that women and minorities are “in the red” when it comes to equal pay.  Across the country, women-owned businesses, civil rights groups and labor organizations participate in local activities to raise awareness about the issue. Pending legislation in the federal government has not been successful in Congress.

If you have questions or concerns about unequal pay, contact our office for knowledgeable assistance.

The lawsuit challenged an alleged history of discriminatory treatment, flawed faculty evaluation processes, and procedural barriers that negatively impacted the professor’s career advancement. What made the case especially significant was the outcome that followed: the professor was offered and ultimately granted a faculty appointment—including tenure consideration—at Tufts University, a major academic employer in the Boston area.

Hiring Bias in Academic Workplaces

Academic institutions rely heavily on structured hiring protocols, performance benchmarking, promotion committees, publication metrics, peer-reviewed contributions, student evaluation frameworks, departmental budgeting authorities, and faculty oversight panels. However, when internal evaluation systems become:

• Subjective without standardized scoring,
• Influenced by informal networking lanes,
• Lacking transparent salary and tenure benchmarking, or
• Dismissive toward internal bias complaints,

the result may produce discrimination at scale—often disguised under institutional policy language rather than overt intent.

Why This Case Matters for Tenure Rights

This event marked an important shift because it highlighted that:

✔ Career opportunities lost due to procedural bias can lead to legal accountability
✔ The definition of discrimination in academia is measured by impact—not presentation format
✔ Documentation gaps do not erase liability if retaliation or biased oversight occurred
✔ Tenure systems must maintain fair academic core standards and procedural coherence
✔ Written policies must be paired with equal access to opportunity and measurable accountability

“Former Professor Suing University Granted Tenure at Tufts,” The Crimson (April 3, 2015) (View Article)

Massachusetts is moving toward one of the most significant overhauls to its noncompete framework, balancing worker mobility with economic growth incentives for companies operating in the Commonwealth.

Attorney Philip Gordon delivered formal testimony before Massachusetts Senators and House Representatives addressing the impact and intent of the proposed noncompete modernization bill.

The Massachusetts Senate passed the legislation by 32 votes to 7, signaling strong legislative support for narrowing enforcement conditions and strengthening rights for employees while maintaining structured protections for eligible companies.

The proposed changes to noncompete laws in Massachusetts would ban those clauses for workers classified as nonexempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Exempt employees – typically, professionals, administrators or executives – would continue to be subject to noncompete clauses, but with more predictable results. 

Noncompetes now would last only for six months, and they would be valid only if limited to a predefined geographic region and specific employment duties. Thus, if an employee finds new employment after six months, in a different area, or with different responsibilities, they would be allowed to begin working immediately.

Other major changes include a requirement that advance notice of any noncompete be provided to individuals prior to employment, and that the clauses themselves be clear and specific.

Click here to view the latest version of Massachusetts Noncompete bill.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

NELA 2014 National Convention (June 25-28, 2014) (View Article)

Growing Scrutiny Around Representative Evidence in Employment Class Actions

The discussion focused on the ideological and procedural consequences flowing from two pivotal judicial rulings:

• Tom Brady, judicial interpretations that tightened class certification standards by questioning whether individual claims could reliably support classwide liability.
• National Employment Lawyers Association circuit divides on collective testimony and class arbitration structuring.

Panel contributions underscored that employment class action litigation increasingly hinges on:

• Strength of representative worker testimony
• Consistency of evidence across claimant groups
• Employer retaliation patterns following internal complaints
• Policy transparency or lack thereof
• Classification disputes involving independent contractors
• Wage, hours, pregnancy, disability, and caregiver rights
• Employer compliance audits and structured pay frameworks
• Arbitration clauses limiting collective court remedies

Without balanced evidentiary standards, collective claims can stall, fail analysis, or be prematurely dismissed, leaving workers without remedies despite widespread harm. The panel stressed that class actions remain one of the most powerful legal tools available when systemic employer abuse affects groups of workers who share similar lack of bargaining power, retaliation risk, or employer policy gatekeeping.

Philip Gordon was interviewed by the Boston Herald for legal perspective following the high-level firings at the Massachusetts-based grocery chain, Market Basket.

The board of directors controlled by Arthur S. Demoulas voted to terminate his cousin, CEO Arthur T. Demoulas, along with several senior professional employees. The leadership shake-up immediately prompted internal unrest, including multiple resignations made in protest and public expressions of worker solidarity.

Family Business Conflict Meets Employment Law Risk

Philip Gordon observed that corporate upheavals rooted in family control battles frequently carry downstream legal consequences especially when personnel decisions become entangled with workplace power struggles, retaliatory behavior, or forced exits.

He also noted that the Demoulas family has a long history of internal legal disputes, emphasizing that this incident is not an isolated tension point. When executive firings lead to mass resignations or protest-motivated departures, additional legal pathways can open, including:

• Constructive discharge claims
• Retaliation for protected protest activity
• Breach of implied employment agreements
• Violation of Massachusetts employment retaliation laws
• Interference with worker rights under state or federal labor statutes

Massachusetts employment retaliation laws protect employees at all levels, including service staff, corporate professionals, and senior executives, when adverse action is influenced by complaints, protest activity, or rights-based advocacy.

In volatile internal conflicts, employers must ensure that termination decisions are grounded in legitimate, non-retaliatory business reasons to withstand legal scrutiny.

Philip noted that this is far from the first family argument in the Demoulas family, whose company is based in Massachusetts and whose litigation is longstanding.

To read the article, click here. Gordon Law Group team of professionals has experience representing all employees, from service workers to CEOs.

If you would like to learn more about the case or employment laws in Massachusetts, contact us today.

One of the clients of Gordon Law Group LLP, Harvard Law professor Dr. Kimberly Theidon, appeared this morning in The Boston Globe. The article follows a wave of national debate on Title IX tenure and gender equity in academia.

Last spring, Harvard denied her tenure. After the decision, she accepted a new tenured faculty role at Tufts University.

Dr. Theidon has brought Title IX claims against Harvard University, stating that she believes the university discriminated against her because of her gender and for openly supporting victims of sexual assault on campus.

You can read the full article here.

You can also read and watch Philip Gordon and Dr. Theidon’s interviews with the Huffington Post, MSNBC and ABC-Boston.

If you would like to learn more about Title IX, check out our Title IX page, our FAQ page or contact us today.

Although not everyone will have a glowing newspaper article about them, something as simple as a LinkedIn profile that neatly encapsulates your resume, serves to show the employer that you are professional.

But your diligence should not end there.  Careless mistakes, such as inappropriate photos on Facebook or disparaging comments on Twitter, will turn a possible job into a nightmare.

Yet, you shouldn’t work to clear out everything.  A name search that comes up empty may also prove disturbing.  Depending upon your industry, if you have no sort of online presence, it may indicate that you are out of touch. Even worse, it could show that you are hiding something.

In short, you must plan ahead.  Understand your industry, and use the internet to your advantage.

Details of the Case

• The plaintiff’s wife suffered from a disabling brain tumor, which required extensive hospitalization and created significant medical costs.
• During a hospital stay, the plaintiff’s employer discharged him, which cancelled his family health insurance policy.
• The plaintiff filed suit, asserting that the employer fired him due to his wife’s disability.
• The plaintiff alleged that his employer discharged him because he was associated with his disabled wife.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the employer illegally discriminated against him under the state’s employment discrimination statute.  The ruling gave judicial weight to the long held stance of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination that the state statute covered association with members of a protected class.  Now, the highest court in the Commonwealth has weighed in to give employees who are caring for disabled loved ones protection from discriminatory employment practices.

If you have questions about discrimination based on association with a disabled individual, contact our office immediately to speak with a trained attorney.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) contains a “motor carrier exemption.” This exemption states that any trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs will have their overtime hours managed by the Department of Transportation. This means that McCall will not be able to receive compensation under the Wage Act when he works more than forty hours in a week. The good news for truck drivers: if you drive a truck with a GVRW below 10,000 lbs, you may be entitled to overtime under Massachusetts state law, too