Bennett & Belfort founding partner David E. Belfort’s successful appeal in Hidalgo v. Watch City Construction Corp., et al. was recently featured in a front page Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (MLW) article entitled “Employer’s Wage Act counterclaims tossed as SLAPP suits.” The case involved B&B client, Plaintiff Andres Hidalgo, whose wage action was met with counterclaims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution by his former employer, Watch City.
Attorney Robert S. Mantell, who assisted on this appeal, reminds us that this is one of the first cases to apply the revised Anti-SLAPP framework established last year by the Supreme Judicial Court in Bristol Asphalt, Co., Inc., et al. v. Rochester Bituminous Products, Inc., et al. In Hidalgo, the Defendants verified complaint was insufficient to support the employer’s contention that the Plaintiff did not work during the period he claimed. However, the article emphasized that the Bristol Asphalt standard to show claims are in fact subject to SLAPP dismissal is a very high bar. The assessment requires a showing that such claims utterly lack legal or factual support. Mr. Mantell stated, “Hidalgo shows how difficult it will be for defendants to establish that plaintiffs’ petitioning is devoid of factual support.”
When asked about the broader impact of the decision, Attorney Belfort said, “It’s particularly important for low-wage workers who can ill afford to fight a well-heeled employer’s counterclaim that’s devoid of fact and law and expressly designed to discourage their using the legal system to get paid wages.” In applying the revised framework established by Bristol Asphalt, Belfort indicated that the Court eliminated this employer’s retaliatory counterclaims and helped to foster “a safe space for other disadvantaged people to stand up for their right to be paid for their work.”
The Defendants must now pay for Hidalgo’s legal fees both as to the appeal and relative to the underling anti-SLAPP motion. Stay tuned for further developments in this evolving case.