Granite Telecommunications, the Quincy, Massachusetts–based managed services provider founded in 2002, has been named in lawsuits and administrative proceedings covering wage and hour claims, employment discrimination, an insurance reimbursement fight that reached the First Circuit, a defamation suit filed by a competitor, a federal bid protest, and an FCC slamming complaint. Some it settled, one it won on appeal, and several it lost. What follows is a case-by-case look at the Granite Telecommunications lawsuit history over roughly the past decade.
Wage and Employment Cases
Hair v. Granite — FLSA Overtime Collective Action
In December 2017, two former inside sales representatives, James Hair and Christopher Witkowski, sued Granite in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Their complaint alleged the company had misclassified inside sales staff as exempt from overtime before February 2017 and, after that date, paid overtime at a flat $8 to $10 per hour instead of time-and-a-half including commissions.1ClassAction.org. Hair et al v. Granite Telecommunications LLC The case swept in Account Managers, Sales Executives, Consultants, and Territory Managers across Granite offices nationwide.
The parties reached a term sheet by May 2018. The gross settlement was $714,900.50, covering federal and state wage claims in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas. Hair and Witkowski were each to receive an additional $3,500 under separate agreements.2Good Jobs First Violation Tracker. Hair v. Granite Telecommunications Settlement Agreement A magistrate judge signed the final approval order and dismissed the case with prejudice on November 9, 2018.3PACER Monitor. Hair et al v. Granite Telecommunications, LLC
Contino and Hawes — Retaliation and Unpaid Commissions
Paul Contino and Michael Hawes resigned from Granite on May 7, 2014, to start their own business. Granite sued them first, alleging they had violated nondisclosure and noncompetition obligations, and obtained a preliminary injunction. In September 2014, Contino and Hawes counterclaimed. They alleged Granite had failed to pay sales commissions promptly, failed to pay overtime for hours over 40 per week, and retaliated against them in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.4Agency Checklists. MA Court Rules Against Insured’s Claim Its Broker Post-Loss Agreed With Insurer to Reduce Coverage
The dispute settled for $5.65 million: $2.15 million to Contino and Hawes for their individual retaliation claims, $2 million to resolve the class wage claims, and $1.5 million for plaintiffs’ counsel. A Massachusetts Superior Court judge approved the settlement as “fair, reasonable and adequate” on December 5, 2018.4Agency Checklists. MA Court Rules Against Insured’s Claim Its Broker Post-Loss Agreed With Insurer to Reduce Coverage
White v. Granite — FMLA Claim Dismissed
In May 2019, a plaintiff identified as White filed an employment discrimination suit against Granite in the District of Massachusetts under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. granted Granite’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment for the company on March 26, 2021.5CourtListener. White v. Granite Telecommunications, LLC
The Berkley Insurance Reimbursement Fight
On November 10, 2016, Stephen Papsis, a chef working for a food services contractor at Granite’s Quincy headquarters, was exposed to raw sewage that had backed up through floor drains in the cafeteria kitchen. Papsis said he developed osteomyelitis and Charcot arthropathy in his right foot and underwent seven surgeries.6GovInfo. Berkley National Insurance Company v. Granite Telecommunications LLC – Memorandum and Order He sued Granite and the building owner, Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC, in Massachusetts state court in 2019. The case settled at mediation on August 31, 2021, for $1.5 million, paid entirely by Granite’s insurer, Berkley National Insurance Company, under a reservation of rights.7Agency Checklists. Court Rules Liability Insurer Can Recover Defense Costs, $1.5 Million Settlement From Insured
Berkley then sued Granite in federal court, seeking to claw back the $1.5 million settlement plus $247,284 in defense costs. Berkley argued the claim fell within the policy’s fungi and bacteria exclusion and was never covered in the first place. A federal district court agreed in July 2022 and ordered full reimbursement.7Agency Checklists. Court Rules Liability Insurer Can Recover Defense Costs, $1.5 Million Settlement From Insured
Granite and Atlantic-Newport appealed. On February 22, 2024, a unanimous First Circuit panel reversed. Chief Judge Barron, joined by Judges Thompson and Gelpí, held that under Massachusetts law, as set out in the 1997 Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Massachusetts v. Goldberg decision, an insurer wanting reimbursement must either get the insured’s agreement to repay, obtain specific authority for a particular settlement, or offer the insured the choice to accept a settlement or take over the defense. Berkley had done none of those things.8FindLaw. Berkley National Insurance Company v. Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC The court also held that Berkley could not recover its defense costs because its reservation-of-rights letters had not explicitly reserved the right to seek defense-cost reimbursement.9Agency Checklists. First Circuit Reverses Insurer’s $1.8M Recovery of Settlement and Defense Costs From Insured
Granite v. USI Insurance Services
The Contino and Hawes settlement produced a second insurance dispute, this one with Granite as plaintiff. After paying the $5.65 million, Granite pursued coverage from its employment practices liability insurer, Arch Insurance Company. In April 2019, Granite sued its broker, USI Insurance Services, claiming USI had secretly agreed with Arch to amend the policy in a way that reduced wage-and-hour coverage. Granite pleaded breach of contract and a Chapter 93A unfair trade practices claim, and asked for $1.54 million in attorneys’ fees and defense costs.10Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Granite Telecommunications, LLC v. USI Insurance Services, LLC
A Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled for USI. The court found the original policy’s “Endorsement 19” had actually excluded coverage for the underlying wage claims entirely, because those claims were not the sole allegation in the proceeding. The amendment USI negotiated replaced that endorsement with a broader one, letting Granite recover millions it otherwise would not have received. Because the change helped Granite, the court found no damages and dismissed all claims with prejudice in May 2021. Granite did not appeal.4Agency Checklists. MA Court Rules Against Insured’s Claim Its Broker Post-Loss Agreed With Insurer to Reduce Coverage
MetTel Defamation Suit
In June 2020, Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation, doing business as MetTel, sued Granite in the Delaware Court of Chancery. MetTel alleged Granite had run a coordinated campaign to poach its clients by telling them MetTel was “in dire financial straits and not likely to survive the COVID-19 crisis.” According to the complaint, the statements had no factual basis and were meant to sow doubt about MetTel’s viability, particularly among healthcare and government customers.11Reason (The Volokh Conspiracy). Libel Case Can’t Be Litigated With Alleged Libel Sealed, and the Alleged Libel Is Now Unsealed
In December 2020, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III rejected Granite’s push to keep the disputed statements under seal, pointing to a “powerful presumption of public access” to Chancery records. A related case in the District of Delaware was terminated on March 31, 2021.12CourtListener. Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. v. Granite Telecommunications, LLC
The VA Bid Protest
Granite and MetTel met again over a Department of Veterans Affairs task order to replace plain old telephone services under GSA’s Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions contract vehicle. The VA first awarded the work to MetTel on September 30, 2024. Granite protested at the Government Accountability Office. The VA took corrective action, awarded MetTel a second time in February 2025, took corrective action again after a second Granite protest, then awarded MetTel a third time.13Government Accountability Office. Granite Telecommunications, LLC – B-423102.3
On July 21, 2025, the GAO denied and partially dismissed Granite’s third protest. Both bidders had “Acceptable” technical ratings and “Low Risk” past performance scores. Granite’s evaluated price was $33.4 million against MetTel’s $32.8 million. Granite argued MetTel’s roughly $21 million price drop between proposal rounds signaled a misunderstanding of the work, but the GAO noted the final solicitation contained no price realism requirement. The GAO also upheld the VA’s finding that Granite’s proprietary EPIK solution and softswitch technology met but did not exceed the requirements, and affirmed the best-value tradeoff favoring MetTel’s lower price over Granite’s slight edge on the Veterans’ Involvement factor.13Government Accountability Office. Granite Telecommunications, LLC – B-423102.3
FCC Slamming Complaint
In 2008, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau sustained a “slamming” complaint against Granite involving an unauthorized change of a subscriber’s telecommunications carrier. Granite attributed the switch to a clerical error, a mistyped billing telephone number. The FCC granted the complaint and ruled the affected subscriber owed nothing for services during the first 30 days after the unauthorized switch. No fine was assessed.14Federal Communications Commission. Granite Telecommunications, LLC – Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Change of Subscriber’s Telecommunications Carrier
Recent Bankruptcy Preference Action
In June 2025, a liquidating trustee for Tantum Companies, LLC filed a preference action against Granite in the North Carolina Western Bankruptcy Court under Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking recovery of money or property. The trustee voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on December 8, 2025, and the court closed it on January 16, 2026.15PACER Monitor. Torf v. Granite Telecommunications LLC