Recently a Federal District Court in Massachusetts barred a former senior supply chain executive from continuing in his new C-suite role with another company.  The decision in Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. v. Much, Case No. 1:26-cv-13572-DJC (D. Mass. 2026) offers important insights on several issues regarding the “employer signature” requirement, affiliate-level protections, and the substantive scope of noncompetition restrictions under the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act’s (“MNAA”).

The Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFML) reshaped the Commonwealth’s leave landscape, imposing broad obligations on employers and providing employees with job-protected, paid leave for qualifying family and medical reasons. As we have noted, courts and the Department of Family and Medical Leave continue to work through various outstanding issues surrounding the relatively new statute.

As we approach the October 29, 2025 effective date for employers to ensure compliance with Massachusetts’s new pay transparency law, An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency (the “Act”), we write to highlight the guidance that the Office of the Attorney General published since our most recent update here.

Many Massachusetts residents have recently considered taking, or have undertaken, steps to relocate from Massachusetts to jurisdictions with lower or no state income taxes, especially in light of the recently enacted 2023 Massachusetts “Millionaire’s Tax”.  While such a move could offer significant tax advantages, a recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, Welch v. Commissioner of Revenue, could reshape how nonresidents are taxed on capital gains from stock sales, emphasizing where the value was earned over where it is recognized. 

In a closely watched decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Miele v. Foundation Medicine, Inc. clarified that the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (MNAA) (G.L. c. 149, § 24L) does not apply to non-solicitation covenants

Restrictive covenants are unquestionably a significant deal consideration in M&A transactions. In the private equity context, a buyer is focused on restrictive covenants to protect its investment by binding the sellers and other recipients of material deal proceeds to obligations and restrictions for a certain period of time following the transaction. Restrictive covenants serve several purposes and are highly beneficial for a buyer; accordingly, absent any legal limitations and assuming sufficient consideration, a buyer is incentivized to impose restrictive covenants on as many selling parties as possible. However, and not surprisingly, sellers heavily negotiate their post-transaction restrictive covenant obligations to keep their business options as open as possible on a go-forward basis. The conflicting interests of buyers and sellers when it comes to restrictive covenants result in carefully negotiated covenants spread out over multiple transaction documents and employment agreements. This article discusses the common restrictive covenants used in private equity transactions, the importance of such covenants in the key transaction documents, and related enforcement considerations. 

In a flurry activity, President Trump dismissed the General Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the initial acting General Counsel of the NLRB who temporarily filled in the General Counsel role.  President Trump also removed a Biden-appointed NLRB Board member and two Biden-appointed EEOC Commissioners.  These actions are likely to disrupt operations at these agencies, including with respect to any ongoing formal matters and in the dissemination of general guidance and oversight they provide. 

The United States Supreme Court recently held in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that the “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof applies in determining whether an employee is exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In issuing its unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected the employee’s argument that the higher “clear and convincing” evidence standard should apply.