Close Print
Print

Mark H. Burak

Shareholder || Boston

Employment Law, Litigation, Wage and Hour, Ethics Compliance and Whistleblower Response, Pay Equity, Workplace Investigations and Organizational Assessments, RIF/WARN
Life Sciences

Mark Burak has specialized in the representation of employers in labor and employment matters for more than 30 years. Mark’s practice focuses on defending employers in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. Mark has successfully handled cases involving virtually the entire spectrum of employment related laws, with a particular emphasis on discrimination laws, pay equity and wage/hour matters. He has tried several cases successfully to conclusion and obtained dismissals or summary judgment on scores of claims.

Mark devotes a substantial part of his practice to providing employers with practical, business savvy advice on day-to-day employment matters, including internal investigations, pay equity and transparency, policy development, wage/hour issues and terminations. Chambers USA 2022 review notes that “Mark is very knowledgeable and a good speaker” and “he is a subject matter expert and offers great client service.”

Mark has represented many of his clients for more than a decade, and several for more than 20 years.  His clients span a number of industries, including high technology, healthcare, hospitality, manufacturing, financial services, and non-profit organizations, with a particular focus on employers in the life sciences space (Mark is the co-chair of Ogletree’s Life Sciences Industry Group).

Employment Law, Litigation, Wage and Hour, Ethics Compliance and Whistleblower Response, Pay Equity, Workplace Investigations and Organizational Assessments, RIF/WARN
Life Sciences
Learn more about Mark H. Burak

Recent Cases:

Klauber v. VMware, Inc. 599 F. Supp.3d 34 (D. Mass. 2021):  Obtained summary judgment on behalf of employer in hotly contested commission dispute.

Shea v. The Fresh Market 2021 WL 2223006 (Mass.Super.):   Succesfully moved to compel arbitration in case where employer signature was missing from arbitration agreement.

Fincher v. EMD Serono, Inc. (United States District Court MA) Civil Action 1:14-CV-10502-RGS: Obtained summary judgment on behalf of employer in disability case.

Oxlaj v. Greencore USA, Inc. (MA Superior Court-Essex) Civil Action ESCV2011-01184-D: Obtained summary judgment on behalf of employer in contentious sexual/national origin harassment and retaliation case.

Trent v. ADT Security Services (United States District Court MA) Civil Action 1:11-C11912-RGS: Obtained summary judgment on behalf of employer in age, retaliation and wage claim action (2013 WL 4512052).

Henry v. BJ’s Wholesale Company (United States District Court MA) Civil Action 1:12-CV-10620-DJC: Obtained summary judgment on behalf of employer in case alleging racial discrimination, racial harassment and retaliation.

Terry v. SimplexGrinnell, LP (United States District Court MA) Civil Action 4:11-CV-40117-FDS: Obtained summary judgment on behalf of employer in case alleging FMLA interference/retaliation and violations of the ADA (2013 WL 1332240).

Confidential Matter: On behalf of pharma company, initiated pursued pre-litigation claims against 18 departed employees who stole confidential and trade secret information.  Obtained return of all client information, payment of attorneys’ fees and extended restrictive covenant agreements without litigation.

Confidential Matter: In trade secrets/customer privacy case, on behalf of high-tech manufacturer filed litigation against two former company executives and obtained substantial monetary settlement and stipulated agreement from defendants to abide by the terms of their non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements.

Confidential Matter: Represented client in high-profile internal investigation of several senior executives regarding alleged gender bias, resulting in the departure of executives without any litigation.

Confidential Matter: Represented client in investigation of senior in-house counsel’s alleged misconduct following allegations of pay inequity, resulting in departure of in-house counsel without litigation.

Reported Cases:

Education

Admittance to Practice

Professional Activities

  • Boston Bar Association
    • Council (2021-current)
    • Former Co-Chair, Labor and Employment Section (2012-2014)
    • Member of Labor and Employment Section Steering Committee (1999 to 2008; 2012 to 2016)
  • Massachusetts Bar Association (Labor and Employment Section)
  • American Bar Association (Labor and Employment Section)
  • Human Resources Leadership Forum

Community Service:

  • Board of Advisors, Pan Mass Challenge (2022-current)
  • Founder and Co-Captain, Team Crank, Pan Mass Challenge (2010-present)
    • Personally responsible for raising in excess of $1.2 million for cancer research at Dana Farber Cancer Institute
  • Board Member, Acton-Boxborough United Way (2015-2021)
  • Board member Acton-Boxborough Youth Soccer (2012-2014)
    • Head coach (2004-2012)
  • Board member Acton-Boxborough Youth Lacrosse (2008-2011)
    • Assistant coach (2006-2010)

Speeches

Insights by Mark H. Burak

Massachusetts State Flag

Is Pay Transparency and Reporting Coming to Massachusetts?

Massachusetts employers should keep an eye on a flurry of proposed legislation recently filed in both the state House of Representatives and Senate. One bill would impose new pay transparency obligations on Massachusetts employers. Another would require Massachusetts employers to report pay data to state regulators and create reporting obligations that go beyond similar obligations in place in other states.

Handicap ramp.

First Circuit Weighs in on ADA’s ‘Single Integrated Employer’ Test and Reckless Indifference Standard for Punitive Damages

In Burnett v. Ocean Properties, Ltd., et al., the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict for the plaintiff in his failure to accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). The court’s opinion provides a useful reference for the “single integrated employer” test for liability under the ADA. More significantly, it is an important reminder for employers regarding how seriously to evaluate accommodation requests, how promptly to respond to them, and how informed employees should be throughout the process. The First Circuit’s ruling shows that the consequences of failing to adequately respond to accommodation requests could lead to a finding that the employer acted with reckless indifference and is liable for punitive damages.

View All