## Facts

- Martins Maintenance, Inc. was a family-owned commercial janitorial company operating in New England and Pennsylvania with layered supervision (owners, regional/area managers, and site supervisors).
- A Martins employee, Fernando Roland, allegedly subjected two immigrant women to perform janitorial work through coercive, forced-service conditions while retaining most of the compensation generated by their labor.
- The Commonwealth presented evidence that multiple supervisors observed or were aware of irregularities tied to Roland’s work arrangements, including implausible timekeeping (e.g., being logged at distant sites or at two sites at once) and unusually high reported hours.
- At least one supervisor saw one of the women at a Martins work site in circumstances inconsistent with company policy and the expected staffing for the assignment.
- Supervisors also had information suggesting a non-employee was performing Roland’s assigned work under irregular arrangements, including use of another name.
- Martins was indicted for trafficking of persons for forced services under G. L. c. 265, § 51(a).
- A Superior Court judge dismissed the indictments for lack of probable cause, rejecting both vicarious liability and a collective-knowledge theory of corporate criminal liability.
- The Commonwealth appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the grand jury evidence established probable cause to hold the corporation criminally liable on a vicarious-liability theory for an employee’s trafficking of persons for forced services under G. L. c. 265, § 51(a).
2. Whether the grand jury evidence established probable cause to hold the corporation criminally liable under a collective-knowledge theory by aggregating supervisors’ partial knowledge to satisfy the statute’s “knowing” requirement.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court reversed the dismissal of the indictments and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held probable cause was not shown for vicarious liability because the evidence did not support that Roland had corporate authority, on the company’s behalf, to engage others to perform the services at issue.
- The court held probable cause was shown under a collective-knowledge theory because at least two supervisors possessed direct and indirect information about Roland’s conduct that, when combined, could support an inference that the corporation acted “knowingly” in connection with forced services and derived benefit from the scheme.
- In assessing sufficiency, the court applied the indictment-stage standard and viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.

## Legal Principles

- Corporate criminal liability for trafficking of persons for forced services under G. L. c. 265, § 51(a) may be pursued under either vicarious liability or a collective-knowledge theory.
- Vicarious criminal liability requires evidence that the employee acted as a corporate agent within the scope of authority relevant to the charged conduct, including authority to act on the corporation’s behalf in engaging others to perform the services.
- Under collective knowledge, a corporation’s “knowing” mental state may be supported by aggregating distinct pieces of information held by different corporate supervisors or managers, even if no single individual had complete knowledge.
- At the grand jury stage, dismissal for insufficient evidence is improper where the record permits a rational inference of probable cause when viewed most favorably to the prosecution.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court reinstated labor-trafficking indictments against the corporation, rejecting vicarious liability for lack of evidence of employee authority to engage workers on the company’s behalf, but holding that supervisors’ combined awareness of repeated red flags could establish probable cause that the corporation knowingly participated in or benefited from forced services.


Commonwealth v. Martins Maintenance, Inc., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 186, 190 N.E.3d 1099 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022)