The first step to registering a business in Massachusetts is to select an original name not already in use by another business in the state.

Downloads / Links

Here are some things to keep in mind when choosing your name:. Once we have verified your company name, incorporate. The filing includes the following information:. When registering a business in Massachusetts, the state requires supplemental information be filed with the Articles of Organization:. Most businesses are required to register electronically with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue by completing the WebFile for Business online application.

It typically takes about 5 to 7 days to incorporate in Massachusetts.

Your browser is outdated

Every Massachusetts corporation must file an annual report with the Corporations Division within two and a half months after the close of the corporation's fiscal year end. Massachusetts does not require name reservation; however, it is a good way to ensure that your company name is available, and will remain available while you file for incorporation.

If I incorporate in Massachusetts, do I have to locate my principal office in the state? Massachusetts permits a corporation's principal office to be located outside of the state, although the corporation must maintain a registered address in the state. No, you won't need to submit bylaws.

What is an EIN? - Employer Identification Number

Nevertheless, drafting your corporation's bylaws is a critical step in forming your company, as they are blueprint that you will use to govern operations. Massachusetts does not require you to publicize your company's formation, and does not have follow-up filing requirements. If you decide to form an LLC in Massachusetts, incorporate. We'll research the availability of your company name and help you prepare and file your Certificate of Organization with the Massachusetts Secretary of Commonwealth.

The first step to forming your LLC in MA is to select an original name not already in use by another business in the state. It typically takes about 5 to 7 days to form an LLC in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts LLC, Business License, Incorporation

Your LLC must file an annual report with the Massachusetts Secretary of Commonwealth on or before the first day of the anniversary of your initial filing. Massachusetts does not require name reservation; however, it is a good way to ensure that your company name is available, and will remain available while you form your Mass LLC. Massachusetts permits an LLC's principal office to be located outside of the state, although you must have a Massachusetts address where your LLC records are kept. Nevertheless, drafting your operating agreement is a critical step in forming your company, as it is the blueprint that you will use to govern operations.

There are many types of licenses, both state and local as well as professional that are required to do business in Massachusetts. They are typically administered by different state and local departments. You will need a business license to operate in Massachusetts. Business licenses are issued by the clerks at the state's cities and towns. In addition to the business license, in MA you may need additional licenses depending on your business or industry. Massachusetts' Division of Professional Licensure oversees 31 licensing boards that regulate trades and professions, each of which issues one or more types of licenses.

Four state agencies regulate and issue licenses for any business activities that affect the environment:. Sarin argues that he has established each of the elements required to support a hostile work environment claim and that Raytheon failed to take immediate, appropriate action to eliminate the problem. Sarin alleges that Goldberg's comments about Sarin's religion the references to Buddha and his religious beliefs that Sarin would not fight back because of his beliefs were "unwelcome comments In addition, Sarin argues that "one of Goldberg's union co-workers Sarin contests Raytheon's suggestion that the harassment experienced by Sarin was "general, everyday harassing interactions between union technicians and management engineers," not based on his national origin or religion.

Sarin contends further that "although there were only four incidents, these incidents were severe, physically threatening and interfered with [Sarin's] work performance. On deposition, Sarin testified that he left his work area each time these incidents occurred in order to calm himself, and that as a result of these incidents, he developed physiological symptoms. The elements of a discrimination claim based on a hostile work environment created by non-management employees are the same under federal and Massachusetts law.

Section West and Supp. Duplessis v. Once the plaintiff has established these propositions, the employer may defeat liability under Title VII and Chapter B by showing that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action in response to its nonmanagement employees' harassing conduct. Because this decision is based on the adequacy of Raytheon's response, it is unnecessary to determine whether, objectively measured, the conduct described by Sarin was actionable under Title VII and Chapter B. For even assuming that Sarin has established a prima facie case for a hostile work environment claim, Raytheon's remedial action was legally sufficient to shield it from liability.

Thus, Raytheon's argument that it cannot be held responsible for its employees actions because it took immediate and appropriate action once it became aware of the harassment is decisive. Because the undisputed facts establish that Raytheon took "immediate and appropriate action" upon learning of each incident Sarin describes, its motion for summary judgment must be granted.

Tax Credit Donations

Sarin does not dispute that his supervisors spoke with Casey as soon as they learned of the incident involving the alligator clip; that the due process hearing was within days of Archambault's threat; that both Casey and Archambault apologized to Sarin once reprimanded by their supervisors; or that no further incidents involving Casey and Archambault arose after these meetings.

While Goldberg was less cooperative, even he discontinued the verbal harassment after being moved to another work station. Sarin argues that Raytheon's efforts to remedy the situation were inadequate because Raytheon did not take disciplinary action against Goldberg, Casey, and Archambault; it did not interview an employee Sarin identified as a witness to one or more incidents; and its investigation was flawed by O'Brien's accusation that Sarin fabricated his allegations.

Although Sarin remains dissatisfied with Raytheon's remedial action,.

  • Massachusetts | LLC, Business License |
  • family tree and genealogy links at surname finder.
  • Sarin v. Raytheon Co., 905 F. Supp. 49 (D. Mass. 1995).

Saad, WL D. Raytheon's remedial action with respect to Casey and Archambault was immediate, appropriate, and successful; after that action their behavior and Goldberg's verbal harassment neither continued nor threatened to recur. Nor does Raytheon's failure to interview Mary Tabor render its remedial action inadequate. The test of the pudding is in the eating: Whether Tabor was interviewed during the investigation is insignificant, because the investigation which was made cured the harassment.

This is not a case such as College-Town, in which the employer's remedial actions were inadequate because it "did not conduct a fair or thorough investigation of [the alleged] sexual harassment Here, Sarin's supervisors at Raytheon responded promptly to each incident Sarin brought to their attention, warned the offenders that any subsequent discriminatory conduct would constitute grounds for severe discipline, and, except for failing to interview Tabor, conducted a full investigation.

As the Court of Appeals of this circuit said in DeGrace v. Rumsfeld , where an employer. Finally, it is worth noting that although Raytheon's motion is granted on the basis of the promptness and adequacy of its remedial action, Raytheon's argument that the incidents described did not reach the level of a "hostile work environment" is persuasive and might well constitute a separate ground for granting summary judgment.

The standard of review, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Harris v. Only Goldberg's comments regarding Sarin's religion and national origin were actionable under this standard, although the other conduct is to be weighed in considering the totality of the circumstances. See also Lewis v.

Gillette Co. Under Title VII, an employer's remedial actions can shield it from liability for harassment committed by a supervisor. Under Chapter B, however, an employer is unconditionally liable for sexual harassment by its supervisors.


Raytheon Co. Sarin v. District Court for the District of Massachusetts - F. Borruso, Ralph A. Mauser, plaintiff. Michael P. Mauser seeks to have his pension, as computed on his salary for a pre stint of employment, reckoned according to the formula for the calculation of pension benefits that became effective in January, the "Amended Formula".

Specifically, he seeks a declaratory judgment that he is entitled to a calculation of his pension under the Amended Formula, or, alternatively, judgment in his favor due to his claimed reliance upon what he says were representations of Raytheon that led him reasonably to believe that his pension would be calculated in accordance with the Amended Formula. The following facts appear from the papers filed by the parties in connection with the motion for summary judgment.

Unless stated as allegations, opinions, or views of one side or the other, the matters stated here are not in dispute. Mauser began working at Raytheon in He voluntarily left the company on February 29, and commenced work at Raytheon again on May 11, He thus became what is known as a "break-in-service" employee. Shortly after Mauser left Raytheon in , he received a statement of benefits, informing him of the total pension amount to which he was entitled for his first period of service, that is the period of service between and The Amended Plan incorporated the Amended Formula, a calculation of pension benefits more favorable to employees than the formula that was in effect when Mauser terminated his first period of employment.

Mauser alleges that, in or about , he heard through the grapevine of former Raytheon employees that Raytheon had adopted the Amended Plan with its more favorable Amended Formula. For that reason, among others, Mauser says, he returned to Raytheon in May About , Mauser received a "Personal Statement of Benefits" that did not reflect any benefits attributable to his first period of service, to Rather, the statement reflected pension benefits calculated only on the basis of that period of his employment commencing in He requested, but did not receive, a "corrected statement," which, in his view, would include some credit, under the Amended Formula, for his pre employment.

Mauser testified during his deposition that he inquired at least three more times during the next several years about receiving credit for his earlier employment, but was told each time that Raytheon would have to investigate the problem and issue a new statement. Mauser claims he is entitled to pension benefits that take into account the application of the Amended Formula to his pre salary. The defendants, of course, disagree and have rejected Mauser's claim that the Amended Formula be applied to his pre earnings. In this case Mauser seeks determinations that would, in effect, reverse the decision of the defendants to deny Mauser's claims.


Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See FED. Shalala, F.

Count One of Mauser's complaint seeks a declaratory judgment clarifying the future benefits to which he is entitled, as well as an injunction ordering the defendants to calculate the pension benefits for his entire employment with Raytheon under the Amended Formula. See Massachusetts Mut. Life Co. Typically, where a benefit plan gives the plan administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, the administrator's decision not to award benefits will be reversed only if it is "arbitrary and capricious.

  • Even in an Existential Crisis, WeWork Continues to Grow.
  • In Re Mauser v. Raytheon Co. Pension, 31 F. Supp. 2d 168 (D. Mass. 1998).
  • hack a forum to track ip.
  • Sarin v. Raytheon Co., 905 F. Supp. 49 (D. Mass. 1995)?

Here, the Amended Plan provides that, "The Administrator shall make all determinations as to the right of any person to a benefit under the plan Mauser alleges that the Plan will save money by denying his claim, and that the decision of the plan administrator therefore should not be treated with the substantial deference accorded under the arbitrary and capricious standard.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has recognized the potential for conflict where the plan administrator also is the plan insurer. See Doyle v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Here, Mauser alleges that, because Raytheon is both the employer and the plan administrator, an equivalent conflict of interest exists.

That does not appear, from the record here, to be the case. Raytheon qua employer does not stand to gain if its pension plan denies claims, because benefits are paid from the Plan's fund, not from Raytheon's assets.