Featured Client Spotlights

CLIENT SPOTLIGHT: Factory Five Racing

Factory Five Racing was founded in 1995. Over the years they have grown from a start-up business in a small garage to become the world's largest manufacturer of "build-it-yourself" component car kits. They employ a full-time crew of about 40 people, and are located in Wareham, Massachusetts (about an hour south of Boston). They make their products right here in the USA, in the heart of New England where American manufacturing was born.
Read More..




        No results found. Please try using a different keyword.
        See all

        Ex-Employee's Claim For Promised Extra Pay Time-Barred

        PS&H employment partner, Alicia Samolis was asked by RI Lawyers Weekly to comment on the recent decision in Daquay v. General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation, which hinged on the question of whether or not the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred.

        U.S. District Court Chief Judge William E. Smith found that a former employee of a federal contractor could not enforce the employer’s alleged promise of something in return for his help obtaining $850 million from the government. The Judge found that the reasonable period of time to seek compensation allegedly promised in 1979 ended well before 2007, when he he left his employment (and ten years before he filed his complaint).

        Though not involved in the case, Alicia was quoted in the article published by Lawyers Weekly, giving some perspective on the Court’s determination.

        “What was striking was how long this employee waited to bring suit,” Samolis said. “If this guy was expecting something in the way of compensation, he should have brought that up shortly afterwards with one of his supervisors.” Samolis also pointed out that nothing occurred to toll the statute of limitations on the Company’s end either. “If the company had strung him along with [even] vague promises of performance, that might have been enough to toll the limitations period.”

        Further making the employer-favorable decision an obvious one was the nature of the alleged promises, which Samolis characterized as “vague” adding that there “were no specifics as to the amount of compensation or the timing of payments.”

        Click here to read full article (subscription required).