Workers’ compensation statutes do more than provide wage replacement and medical benefits. In certain circumstances, they also protect an injured employee’s right to be rehired when suitable work becomes available. Disputes often arise when an employer resists rehiring a former employee after a compensable injury, particularly where prior litigation or labor agreements complicate the employment relationship. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court highlights how courts enforce the workers’ compensation hiring preference statute and the broad equitable powers available to ensure compliance. If you are seeking reemployment after a work-related injury in Massachusetts, you should consider consulting with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney to understand how these protections apply.
Case History
Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant community college for approximately two decades in campus security and police roles, eventually attaining a supervisory position. After filing internal and administrative complaints alleging workplace misconduct, the plaintiff experienced a stress-related medical event and took medical leave from employment.
It is alleged that, when the plaintiff attempted to return to work, the defendant terminated employment on the grounds that adequate medical documentation had not been provided. An arbitrator later upheld the termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Several years later, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff on separate employment discrimination claims arising from the earlier events.
Reportedly, the plaintiff subsequently applied for a campus police officer position with the defendant. The plaintiff was the only applicant with prior employment history at the institution. The defendant rejected the application during the screening process and hired another candidate, asserting that the plaintiff had provided false information on the application.
It is reported that the plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendant violated the workers’ compensation hiring preference statute and retaliated against her for prior protected activity. A jury determined that the defendant’s stated reason for rejecting the application was pretextual and found for the plaintiff on both claims. The trial court entered a judgment ordering the defendant to offer the plaintiff a suitable job consistent with the statute.
Allegedly, the defendant sought to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. After multiple motions and interim orders, a single justice of the Appeals Court denied the stay. The defendant appealed from that denial.
Reemployment in Workers’ Compensation Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the single justice erred in denying a stay of the judgment ordering reemployment. The court applied the established standard requiring the moving party to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, lack of harm to others, and consistency with the public interest. Failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success alone was fatal to the request.
Central to the court’s analysis was the workers’ compensation hiring preference statute, which requires employers to give preference in hiring to employees who lost their jobs as a result of a compensable injury, provided a suitable job is available. The court explained that the statute defines substantive employee rights and authorizes courts to order equitable relief, including reinstatement and back pay, when those rights are violated.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the judgment conflicted with the collective bargaining agreement. It concluded that nothing in the agreement displaced the statutory hiring preference and that courts retain broad equitable authority to fashion remedies enforcing statutory rights. The court also determined that the plaintiff lost employment as a result of a compensable injury within the meaning of the statute, even though the termination followed disputes over medical documentation.
The court further held that the judgment properly accounted for certification requirements by limiting the plaintiff’s duties until required credentials were obtained. Because the defendant failed to identify any appellate issue likely to succeed, the court affirmed the order denying the stay, allowing the reemployment order to remain in effect.
Meet with a Capable Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
Workers’ compensation rights extend beyond benefit payments and may include reemployment protections when an injured worker seeks to return to the workforce. If you believe an employer has failed to honor your reemployment rights after a work-related injury, it is important to know your rights, and you should talk to an attorney. James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is a capable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who assists clients in the pursuit of benefits, and if you engage his services, he will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach us at 508-822-6600 or submit a request through the firm’s online contact form to arrange a consultation and discuss your legal options.