Daniel W. Rice is no longer associated with Glynn, Landry & Rice, LLP. He is now associated with:

Harrington & Rice, P.C.
25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 200
Braintree, Massachusetts 02184
Direct: (781) 964-8377
Email: dwr@harringtonrice.com

An updated website will be available soon.

At Harrington & Rice, Daniel will continue to focus 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. Daniel has successfully litigated cases involving large companies in the telecommunications and retail industries, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and large municipalities in Massachusetts.

Daniel 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.

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 illegal drug 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.