Bennett & Belfort founding partner David E. Belfort and attorney Nafisa Bohra, with the assistance of appellate counsel Robert S. Mantell, won a significant appellate victory that affirms the protections afforded by the Massachusetts’ anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”) statute. The so-called “Anti-SLAPP” law protects litigants, including employees, who assert their rights in court and are then countersued for those efforts.
On December 26, 2024, the Massachusetts Appeals Court decided in Hidalgo v. Watch City Construction Corp., that the trial court should have dismissed the employer’s counterclaims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process that the defendants improperly filed because their former construction employee, Andres Hidalgo, sued them for non-payment of his earned hourly wages. Attorney Mantell, who was a primary drafter on the appellate briefs, importantly points out that “Hidalgo is one of the first decisions applying the revised anti-SLAPP framework established by the Supreme Judicial Court in Bristol Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Rochester Bituminous Prods., Inc., 493 Mass. 539, 540 (2024), earlier this year.”
B&B’s client, Mr. Hidalgo, is laborer who sued Watch City Construction and its owner Zepeda for failing to pay him for a month of construction-related work. The defendants countersued, claiming in part that Mr. Hidalgo’s suit lacked any basis in fact because, they contended, Mr. Hidalgo had not actually worked the four weeks for which he had alleged that he had not been paid. Of important note, the defendants provided no admissible evidence supporting this allegation.
Mr. Hidalgo moved to dismiss the countersuit because the defendants had filed two of their three ‘process’ counterclaims solely because Mr. Hidalgo had sued them, which the anti-SLAPP law prohibits. The trial court first allowed Mr. Hidalgo’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss but then, surprisingly, reversed course and accepted the defendants’ argument, denying the motion. Mr. Hidalgo appealed directly to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, as permitted under the SLAPP law.
The Appeals Court reversed the lower District Court and concluded that the defendants had indeed countersued because Mr. Hidalgo simply filed a lawsuit. In other words, Defendants’ claim that Mr. Hidalgo had an “ulterior motive” in bringing his wage suit did not provide a basis for their counterclaims other than Mr. Hidalgo’s litigation. “The operative act complained of is the filing of a lawsuit,” the Appeals Court stated. “The damages sought flow from the filing of that lawsuit. And the filing of a lawsuit is unquestionably protected petitioning activity.”
Because the counterclaims were solely based on Mr. Hidalgo’s “petitioning activity,” the anti-SLAPP law required their dismissal unless defendants demonstrated that Mr. Hidalgo’s suit lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law. Critically, the defendants failed to provide evidence to support their counterclaims (such as verified time records or affidavits with first-hand observations) supporting their allegation that Mr. Hidalgo had not worked the four weeks he had claimed. The Appeals Court opined, “Watch City’s showing — which contradicts Hidalgo’s complaint but provides no factual depth—is far too thin a reed to support a finding of no reasonable basis for suit.”
Lead counsel David E. Belfort commented that “this case is important as it will help reduce the chilling effect on the exercise of the right to petition when low wage workers file suit to recover their wages. By eliminating Appellees retaliatory counterclaims, the Court has helped create a safe space for other disadvantaged people to stand up for their rights to be paid for their work.”
After Hidalgo petitions the Appeals Court for reimbursement of his attorneys’ fees and costs, as required under the SLAPP statute, the case will be remanded to the state District Court for further proceedings.
