Daniel W. Rice
For the past three decades, Dan Rice has focused his practice on the representation of parties in employment disputes before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. He has secured outstanding results through both jury verdicts and settlements in a range of employment disputes, including claims for unpaid sales commissions, age discrimination, sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, whistleblowing, violations of the First Amendment, race discrimination, non-competition agreements, and wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law. Dan has successfully litigated cases involving large companies in the telecommunications and retail industries, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and large municipalities in Massachusetts.
Dan is a 1986 graduate of Brown University and a 1991 graduate of Suffolk University Law School, cum laude. He is admitted to the state and federal bars of Massachusetts.
As set forth in the examples below, Attorney Rice has achieved outstanding results for clients in a wide range of employment matters.
Unpaid Sales Commissions- Multiple recoveries, including in the mid to high six-figure range, for commission sales professionals alleging they weren’t paid their earned commissions upon departing their sales jobs.
Whistleblowing by City Employee- $375,000 total recovery for a city employee who alleged that he was retaliated against for speaking out against City’s failure to adhere to national safety standards.
Race and Gender Discrimination of Trial Court Employee-$357,000 total recovery for a court officer who alleged she was subjected to racial and pregnancy-related harassment and discrimination.
Unpaid Wages, DPW Supervisors-$400,000 recovery for superintendents of municipality’s public works department who alleged they were not paid earned wages for “off the clock work.”
Unpaid FLSA Overtime, Corrections Officers-$2.7 million recovery for corrections officers who alleged they were not paid in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “regular rate” requirement.
Equal Pay Act, Gender Discrimination-$420,000 recovery for female custodians of municipality who alleged that they were paid less than similarly situated male employees for similar work, because of their gender.
Sexual Harassment, Female Custodian-$225,000 recovery for a female custodian of city school department who alleged she had been subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor.
Sexual Harassment, Sheriff’s Department Employee-$100,000 recovery for administrative employee of Sheriff’s Department who alleged she was subjected to workplace sexual harassment.
Age Discrimination, DPW Employee-$120,000 recovery for DPW employee who alleged he had been forced to retire based on his age.
ADA/Handicap Discrimination, High School Coach-$325,000 settlement for high school coach who alleged she was terminated from her coaching job on the basis of disability/handicap.
ADA/Handicap Discrimination, City Police Officer-$175,000 settlement for a female police officer who alleged she was retaliated against and discriminated against because of her pregnancy-related disability.
Whistleblowing/Retaliation, Sheriff’s Department Employees-$250,000 settlement for Sheriff’s Department employees who alleged they were retaliated against for whistleblowing.
Reported Cases of Note
Lawless v. Steward Health Care System, 894 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2018) – An employee suing under the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L. c. 149, § 148 can commence an action in court before receiving permission to sue from the Massachusetts Attorney General.
Thurdin v. SEI Boston, LLC, 452 Mass. 436 (2008) – Landmark decision holding that employees of Massachusetts employers with fewer than six employees may assert claims for unlawful discrimination under the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, G.L. c. 93, § 102.
Izzo v. Genesco, Inc., 171 F.Supp.3d 1 (D. Mass. 2016) – If an employee is terminated for suspected illegal drug use and is not currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, and is erroneously regarded as engaging in such use, or if he is a recovered or recovering drug addict or erroneously regarded as a drug addict, then he does qualify for protection under the ADA.
Fenn v. Mansfield Bank, 2015 WL 628560 (D. Mass. 2015) – With respect to associational discrimination, the ADA forbids “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association.”
Mansfield v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 2013 WL 947191 (D. Mass. 2013) – The Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law, G.L. c. 149, § 148, does not preempt a salesman’s common law claims that under a monthly commission agreement, his employer wrongfully denied him commissions due him in months after it terminated salesman’s employment contract.
Rudy v. City of Lowell, 777 F.Supp.2d 255 (D. Mass. 2011) – Damages due class members for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) must be calculated on a weekly basis, and may not be offset “cumulatively” by payments their employer might have made in excess of FLSA requirements in previous or subsequent weeks.
Flipp v. Town of Rockland, 613 F.Supp.2d 141 (D. Mass. 2009) – To make out a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, an employee need not allege or show that her position was filled by someone outside her protected class.
Fernandes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2007 WL 671291 (D. Mass. 2007) – Employee’s claim under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) not barred for failure to request leave in advance, where need for leave was not foreseeable and employee was not provided the opportunity to request leave retroactively.
Allain v. Mass. DOC, Norfolk Superior Court C.A. No. 2003-01528 -Commonwealth’s failure to pay National Guardsman wages for military service is subject to the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law, G.L. c. 149, § 148.
Lemire v. Silva, 104 F. Supp. 3d 80 (D. Mass. 2000) – Under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the abilities to travel, work, and to interact with others are major life activities. Moreover, a plaintiff’s application for or receipt of Social Security disability benefits does not preclude her claim under the ADA.