Sullivan
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Sullivan website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

Our employment attorneys have years of experience advising clients on how to manage human resources most productively, with an emphasis on "preventive maintenance" and litigation avoidance. In addition to guiding company leaders on human resources matters, we also provide services to employees and executives seeking highly responsive and experienced legal guidance and advocacy.

We assist in formulating effective and dependable procedures for all phases of the employment relationship. At the hiring stage, we guide employers in complying with pay transparency laws and other evolving legal areas, prepare offer letters and employment contracts, and protect intellectual property through non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements.

We partner with our clients to create workplace policies that meet the needs of their workforces. We regularly assist clients in designing paid time off (including unlimited PTO) policies, policies for parental and disability needs, and policies for remote and hybrid work. We prepare anti-discrimination and retaliation policies, and we lead live trainings to educate workforces about appropriate workplace behavior.

Together with our compensation and benefits colleagues, we have the expertise to provide fast and cost-effective answers to “quick questions” and the depth to assist our clients with a wide variety of employment and tax-related issues including internal investigations, state law payroll compliance, assisting in exempt versus non-exempt employment classification for FLSA purposes, and advising on the often complex issue of employment versus independent contractor status.  We also routinely support clients in merger and acquisition transactions, including assisting with diligence, which often involves many of these just mentioned issues, and negotiation representations and covenants.

When especially delicate employment situations arise – including requests for religious or medical accommodation, allegations of harassment and discrimination, employee underperformance, and theft of intellectual property – we provide timely and savvy solutions.

When crisis and discord are unavoidable, we are poised to respond swiftly and decisively. We meet litigation threats with prompt risk assessment and experience-based strategy. Our practice group includes seasoned litigators who concentrate in employment-related disputes and adversary proceedings, including issues of unlawful termination, discrimination, breach of contract, covenants not to compete, compensation disputes, and benefit claims.

Our employment law team is backstopped by our compensation and benefits colleagues who are well versed in issues affecting employment law, such as helping to craft tax-efficient employment and severance arrangements, payroll reporting and withholding, and managing risk, including risk associated with Internal Revenue Code Sections 162(m), 280G, 4999, and 409A.

Employment & Benefits Practice Areas

Employment & Benefits

Compensation & Benefits Plan Design and Administration

Executive Compensation

ERISA Fiduciary

Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
Erika Todd Featured on Podcast Discussing the Legal Risks of Freelancing While Employed
Erika Todd was recently featured on The FreeLance Mindset Studio Podcast with host Joy Batra in an episode titled, “The Hidden Legal Risks of Side Hustles.” During the conversation, Erika discussed legal considerations for professionals to keep in mind when balancing a full-time job with a side business. Topics covered included key agreement and policy language that affect employees’ rights (such as invention assignment agreements and restrictions on outside work); state law differences in the legal protections available to freelance workers; and navigating discussions with a primary employer about a side venture. You can access the episode on all platforms here.
What Non-Celebrities Can Learn about Contract and Workplace Issues from the Lively/Baldoni Decision
In a lawsuit, allegations of bad behavior count only if there is a legal line that was arguably crossed. Blake Lively alleged that she experienced sexual harassment while working on “It Ends with Us” and then faced retaliation when she complained. While most employees are legally entitled to be free from harassment and retaliation, Lively and the defendants disputed whether she was even an employee in the first place. The Court found that Lively does not have a viable claim for harassment under law or contract, but certain retaliation allegations can go to trial. The Court’s decision illustrates issues that are important in any business relationship or workplace: companies have fewer obligations to independent contractors; unsigned contracts are not automatically unenforceable; different states have wildly different workplace laws; and retaliation cases sometimes have sharper teeth than the underlying harassment or discrimination allegations. Independent contractor status means fewer legal rights. Lively brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under both federal and state law. Under federal law, employees—but not independent contractors—have the right to be free from sexual harassment and from retaliation when they push back. The legal question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is not just a matter of how the parties describe their relationship, but instead depends on the specific nature of their relationship. In this case, the Court found that Lively was not an employee. Among other things, she had committed to a single, fixed-term project; she was allowed to pursue other work; she had approval rights for many important aspects of the film (such as the shooting location and casting decisions); and she was paid a flat rate for the project plus contingent compensation based on project’s success. Unsigned contracts aren’t always unenforceable. Lively argued that she had contractual protections against harassment under her Actor Loanout Agreement. But the parties never agreed on a final draft of the agreement, and Lively never signed it. Although the Court held that the contract was not enforceable, that wasn’t an automatic decision based on the lack of signatures. The Court focused on the contract’s own language that it would not be binding until executed. When relationships break down, seemingly unexciting legal boilerplate can suddenly be a lynchpin. The parties’ behavior also matters. The Court emphasized that the production company repeatedly asked Lively to sign, and she refused—both sides acted as though a signature would make a difference. Additionally, when the parties perform their obligations under a contract, that can show that they believe the contract is in effect even if they didn’t sign it. In this case, the parties’ working relationship was already subject to an offer letter, regardless of whether they signed the longer contract. In other circumstances, however, an unsigned contract could be treated as an enforceable agreement. Different states establish vastly different worker protections. Without federal law or a contract to rely on for anti-harassment protection, Lively’s case puts the focus on state law. Many states have workplace protection laws that go beyond federal standards, and California—where at least some facts occurred—is at the far end of that bell curve. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), anti-harassment and anti-retaliation protections don’t just apply to employees, but also to independent contractors; under California Civil Code 51.9, sexual harassment prohibitions even apply to other business, service, or professional relationships. The Court held that Lively could not maintain anti-harassment claims under FEHA because the alleged on-set harassment did not happen in California—this means that if the movie had been shot in California, her harassment claims might have survived. An individual’s decision of where to work, and a company’s decision of where to operate, can have enormous consequences. However, the Court held that her retaliation claim under FEHA could go forward because those claims did involve alleged actions in California. This flags another important state law difference. Under federal law, retaliation is actionable only if it is the “but for” cause of an adverse action. If the negative action—a termination, a demotion, the reputational attack alleged here—would have happened anyway, there is no retaliation. Not so in California. If retaliation was a “substantial motivating factor” for the decision, there is a viable claim, even if the same action would have been taken regardless. (The Court also held that a contractual retaliation claim could go to trial; that claim is based on an agreement reached in response to Lively’s workplace complaints, not the unsigned Actor Loanout Agreement discussed above.) A retaliation claim does not depend on whether the worker would also win a harassment or discrimination claim. Lively’s FEHA retaliation claim does not require her to definitively prove harassment or discrimination; instead, it requires that she sincerely held a reasonable belief that she was opposing a practice that the state law prohibits. (Federal law works similarly but is limited to employees.) A business may or may not have actually crossed a legal line—but if the worker reasonably thought that it did, the business’s confidence in its innocence is no justification to retaliate. In this case, the Court found that Lively has provided sufficient evidence that a jury may conclude she reasonably believed she was sexually harassed. This is only a preliminary decision allowing certain claims to proceed to trial, and soon, a jury will decide. (This is a brief discussion of a 150+ page decision and necessarily is highly condensed.)
Sullivan & Worcester Tax Partner Amy Sheridan Elected to Firm's Management Committee
Boston, MA – International law firm Sullivan & Worcester announced today that Amy Sheridan, a partner in the Tax Practice, has been elected to the firm’s seven-person Management Committee. An industry leader regarding the tax implications of employee benefits and executive compensation, Amy has been recognized for her professional achievements by multiple legal trade outlets, including being named an “Employment Law Trailblazer” by the National Law Journal. “Amy has held a variety of leadership positions within the firm, and she brings valuable perspective to our Management Committee as we look to the future and continue maintaining the exceptional service our clients expect,” said David Nagle, Managing Partner at Sullivan. “She has a remarkable ability to dive deep into complex issues and fully appreciate the consequences of different outcomes, a quality her clients have extolled. I have no doubt that Amy will bring that same focus and thoughtful judgment to her work on the Management Committee.” Amy is experienced in designing, structuring and addressing documentation and compliance issues for compensation and benefit arrangements. She has broad expertise with regulatory and tax requirements related to welfare plans (including the Affordable Care Act and HIPAA privacy and security requirements), qualified and nonqualified retirement plans and IRAs. She has been recognized for her work in structuring novel and creative deferred compensation, bonus and phantom equity arrangements and is a thought leader on post-Dobbs legal developments and their impact on employee benefit plan arrangements.  A noted speaker on tax issues, Amy has numerous professional affiliations, including serving as an At-Large Member of the Boston Bar Association’s Tax Committee and as a former Co-Chair of its ERISA Committee. She is a lecturer at the Boston University School of Law’s Graduate Tax Program and was a Member of the Boston Compensation Advisory Board, the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries and the New England Employee Benefits Council. In the broader business community, she was a member of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce’s Women’s Network Advisory Board and is former President of the Wellesley College Alumnae Association of Boston. Amy earned her J.D. at Harvard Law School and her LL.M. in Taxation from the Boston University School of Law. She attended Wellesley College for her undergraduate degree. About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best‑in‑class client service.
Worker Harassment Cases Get ‘Tricky’ With Mentally Ill Patients
Erika Todd was quoted in the article "Worker Harassment Cases Get ‘Tricky’ With Mentally Ill Patients," published by Bloomberg Law on May 15, 2024. The article discusses the difficulties of treating worker harassment cases that involve third-party, non-employee mentally ill patients. "It is still theoretically possible to have a harassment claim that is based on a patient’s behavior,” Erika said. “But the bar is seen to be higher for how severe or how frequent the misbehavior must be before there’s a possible legal claim.” The decision also suggests that there’s a “certain amount of harassment or discrimination that you just have to put up with,” but not all health-care professionals “might be able to tolerate that,” she said.

Employment Counseling & Litigation

Our employment attorneys have years of experience advising clients on how to manage human resources most productively, with an emphasis on "preventive maintenance" and litigation avoidance. In addition to guiding company leaders on human resources matters, we also provide services to employees and executives seeking highly responsive and experienced legal guidance and advocacy.

We assist in formulating effective and dependable procedures for all phases of the employment relationship. At the hiring stage, we guide employers in complying with pay transparency laws and other evolving legal areas, prepare offer letters and employment contracts, and protect intellectual property through non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements.

We partner with our clients to create workplace policies that meet the needs of their workforces. We regularly assist clients in designing paid time off (including unlimited PTO) policies, policies for parental and disability needs, and policies for remote and hybrid work. We prepare anti-discrimination and retaliation policies, and we lead live trainings to educate workforces about appropriate workplace behavior.

Together with our compensation and benefits colleagues, we have the expertise to provide fast and cost-effective answers to “quick questions” and the depth to assist our clients with a wide variety of employment and tax-related issues including internal investigations, state law payroll compliance, assisting in exempt versus non-exempt employment classification for FLSA purposes, and advising on the often complex issue of employment versus independent contractor status.  We also routinely support clients in merger and acquisition transactions, including assisting with diligence, which often involves many of these just mentioned issues, and negotiation representations and covenants.

When especially delicate employment situations arise – including requests for religious or medical accommodation, allegations of harassment and discrimination, employee underperformance, and theft of intellectual property – we provide timely and savvy solutions.

When crisis and discord are unavoidable, we are poised to respond swiftly and decisively. We meet litigation threats with prompt risk assessment and experience-based strategy. Our practice group includes seasoned litigators who concentrate in employment-related disputes and adversary proceedings, including issues of unlawful termination, discrimination, breach of contract, covenants not to compete, compensation disputes, and benefit claims.

Our employment law team is backstopped by our compensation and benefits colleagues who are well versed in issues affecting employment law, such as helping to craft tax-efficient employment and severance arrangements, payroll reporting and withholding, and managing risk, including risk associated with Internal Revenue Code Sections 162(m), 280G, 4999, and 409A.

Employment & Benefits Practice Areas

Employment & Benefits

Compensation & Benefits Plan Design and Administration

Executive Compensation

ERISA Fiduciary

Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
Erika Todd Featured on Podcast Discussing the Legal Risks of Freelancing While Employed
Erika Todd was recently featured on The FreeLance Mindset Studio Podcast with host Joy Batra in an episode titled, “The Hidden Legal Risks of Side Hustles.” During the conversation, Erika discussed legal considerations for professionals to keep in mind when balancing a full-time job with a side business. Topics covered included key agreement and policy language that affect employees’ rights (such as invention assignment agreements and restrictions on outside work); state law differences in the legal protections available to freelance workers; and navigating discussions with a primary employer about a side venture. You can access the episode on all platforms here.
What Non-Celebrities Can Learn about Contract and Workplace Issues from the Lively/Baldoni Decision
In a lawsuit, allegations of bad behavior count only if there is a legal line that was arguably crossed. Blake Lively alleged that she experienced sexual harassment while working on “It Ends with Us” and then faced retaliation when she complained. While most employees are legally entitled to be free from harassment and retaliation, Lively and the defendants disputed whether she was even an employee in the first place. The Court found that Lively does not have a viable claim for harassment under law or contract, but certain retaliation allegations can go to trial. The Court’s decision illustrates issues that are important in any business relationship or workplace: companies have fewer obligations to independent contractors; unsigned contracts are not automatically unenforceable; different states have wildly different workplace laws; and retaliation cases sometimes have sharper teeth than the underlying harassment or discrimination allegations. Independent contractor status means fewer legal rights. Lively brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under both federal and state law. Under federal law, employees—but not independent contractors—have the right to be free from sexual harassment and from retaliation when they push back. The legal question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is not just a matter of how the parties describe their relationship, but instead depends on the specific nature of their relationship. In this case, the Court found that Lively was not an employee. Among other things, she had committed to a single, fixed-term project; she was allowed to pursue other work; she had approval rights for many important aspects of the film (such as the shooting location and casting decisions); and she was paid a flat rate for the project plus contingent compensation based on project’s success. Unsigned contracts aren’t always unenforceable. Lively argued that she had contractual protections against harassment under her Actor Loanout Agreement. But the parties never agreed on a final draft of the agreement, and Lively never signed it. Although the Court held that the contract was not enforceable, that wasn’t an automatic decision based on the lack of signatures. The Court focused on the contract’s own language that it would not be binding until executed. When relationships break down, seemingly unexciting legal boilerplate can suddenly be a lynchpin. The parties’ behavior also matters. The Court emphasized that the production company repeatedly asked Lively to sign, and she refused—both sides acted as though a signature would make a difference. Additionally, when the parties perform their obligations under a contract, that can show that they believe the contract is in effect even if they didn’t sign it. In this case, the parties’ working relationship was already subject to an offer letter, regardless of whether they signed the longer contract. In other circumstances, however, an unsigned contract could be treated as an enforceable agreement. Different states establish vastly different worker protections. Without federal law or a contract to rely on for anti-harassment protection, Lively’s case puts the focus on state law. Many states have workplace protection laws that go beyond federal standards, and California—where at least some facts occurred—is at the far end of that bell curve. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), anti-harassment and anti-retaliation protections don’t just apply to employees, but also to independent contractors; under California Civil Code 51.9, sexual harassment prohibitions even apply to other business, service, or professional relationships. The Court held that Lively could not maintain anti-harassment claims under FEHA because the alleged on-set harassment did not happen in California—this means that if the movie had been shot in California, her harassment claims might have survived. An individual’s decision of where to work, and a company’s decision of where to operate, can have enormous consequences. However, the Court held that her retaliation claim under FEHA could go forward because those claims did involve alleged actions in California. This flags another important state law difference. Under federal law, retaliation is actionable only if it is the “but for” cause of an adverse action. If the negative action—a termination, a demotion, the reputational attack alleged here—would have happened anyway, there is no retaliation. Not so in California. If retaliation was a “substantial motivating factor” for the decision, there is a viable claim, even if the same action would have been taken regardless. (The Court also held that a contractual retaliation claim could go to trial; that claim is based on an agreement reached in response to Lively’s workplace complaints, not the unsigned Actor Loanout Agreement discussed above.) A retaliation claim does not depend on whether the worker would also win a harassment or discrimination claim. Lively’s FEHA retaliation claim does not require her to definitively prove harassment or discrimination; instead, it requires that she sincerely held a reasonable belief that she was opposing a practice that the state law prohibits. (Federal law works similarly but is limited to employees.) A business may or may not have actually crossed a legal line—but if the worker reasonably thought that it did, the business’s confidence in its innocence is no justification to retaliate. In this case, the Court found that Lively has provided sufficient evidence that a jury may conclude she reasonably believed she was sexually harassed. This is only a preliminary decision allowing certain claims to proceed to trial, and soon, a jury will decide. (This is a brief discussion of a 150+ page decision and necessarily is highly condensed.)
Sullivan & Worcester Tax Partner Amy Sheridan Elected to Firm's Management Committee
Boston, MA – International law firm Sullivan & Worcester announced today that Amy Sheridan, a partner in the Tax Practice, has been elected to the firm’s seven-person Management Committee. An industry leader regarding the tax implications of employee benefits and executive compensation, Amy has been recognized for her professional achievements by multiple legal trade outlets, including being named an “Employment Law Trailblazer” by the National Law Journal. “Amy has held a variety of leadership positions within the firm, and she brings valuable perspective to our Management Committee as we look to the future and continue maintaining the exceptional service our clients expect,” said David Nagle, Managing Partner at Sullivan. “She has a remarkable ability to dive deep into complex issues and fully appreciate the consequences of different outcomes, a quality her clients have extolled. I have no doubt that Amy will bring that same focus and thoughtful judgment to her work on the Management Committee.” Amy is experienced in designing, structuring and addressing documentation and compliance issues for compensation and benefit arrangements. She has broad expertise with regulatory and tax requirements related to welfare plans (including the Affordable Care Act and HIPAA privacy and security requirements), qualified and nonqualified retirement plans and IRAs. She has been recognized for her work in structuring novel and creative deferred compensation, bonus and phantom equity arrangements and is a thought leader on post-Dobbs legal developments and their impact on employee benefit plan arrangements.  A noted speaker on tax issues, Amy has numerous professional affiliations, including serving as an At-Large Member of the Boston Bar Association’s Tax Committee and as a former Co-Chair of its ERISA Committee. She is a lecturer at the Boston University School of Law’s Graduate Tax Program and was a Member of the Boston Compensation Advisory Board, the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries and the New England Employee Benefits Council. In the broader business community, she was a member of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce’s Women’s Network Advisory Board and is former President of the Wellesley College Alumnae Association of Boston. Amy earned her J.D. at Harvard Law School and her LL.M. in Taxation from the Boston University School of Law. She attended Wellesley College for her undergraduate degree. About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best‑in‑class client service.
Worker Harassment Cases Get ‘Tricky’ With Mentally Ill Patients
Erika Todd was quoted in the article "Worker Harassment Cases Get ‘Tricky’ With Mentally Ill Patients," published by Bloomberg Law on May 15, 2024. The article discusses the difficulties of treating worker harassment cases that involve third-party, non-employee mentally ill patients. "It is still theoretically possible to have a harassment claim that is based on a patient’s behavior,” Erika said. “But the bar is seen to be higher for how severe or how frequent the misbehavior must be before there’s a possible legal claim.” The decision also suggests that there’s a “certain amount of harassment or discrimination that you just have to put up with,” but not all health-care professionals “might be able to tolerate that,” she said.

Employment Counseling & Litigation