Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
Employees who experience harassment in the workplace may understandably wish to pursue a variety of legal remedies. However, Massachusetts law provides carefully structured statutory schemes that limit the avenues for relief. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court demonstrates how exclusivity provisions in the Workers’ Compensation Act can block employees from bringing common law or alternative statutory claims. If you have faced workplace harassment or discrimination, it is critical to understand these limits and to seek advice from an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can guide you through the proper channels.
Factual Background and Procedural History
It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company from 1985 until her termination in 1992. During her employment, she was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment in multiple departments, including threats, obscene remarks, sexual slurs, and offensive visual displays. The employer held occasional meetings in response to her complaints but failed to take meaningful corrective action. The plaintiff further alleged that when she requested a change in her schedule or work environment, her requests were largely denied, and she continued to be exposed to harassment.
It is reported that the plaintiff’s employment was ultimately terminated, and as a result of the hostile work environment she endured, she suffered severe emotional distress. She filed a lawsuit asserting multiple claims, including violations of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, and G.L. c. 214, § 1C, which guarantees a right to be free from sexual harassment. She also brought common law claims for negligent supervision, failure to investigate, breach of contract, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the plaintiff appealed.
Exclusivity of Remedies
On review, the court addressed the interplay between different statutes and the exclusivity of remedies under Massachusetts law. The plaintiff argued that she should be able to pursue her claims under alternative statutes, particularly G.L. c. 214, § 1C, even though she had not filed a timely charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination under G.L. c. 151B, the state’s anti-discrimination statute.
The court rejected this argument, holding that where G.L. c. 151B applies, its remedies and procedures are exclusive. The court explained that the Legislature designed c. 151B to ensure that all claims of workplace discrimination, including sexual harassment, are subject to administrative review before they can proceed to court. Allowing employees to bypass this system would undermine the statute’s purpose and disrupt the balance it strikes between employee protections and employer defenses. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims under other statutes were barred.
The court also considered the plaintiff’s common law claims. It concluded that those claims were either duplicative of the statutory claims and therefore barred by c. 151B, or else barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Emotional distress claims, whether intentional or negligent, fall squarely within the definition of compensable personal injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act, meaning that they cannot be pursued as common law actions against the employer. The court emphasized that this result aligns with Massachusetts precedent and reflects the Legislature’s intent to provide a uniform statutory remedy for workplace injuries, including those arising from emotional distress.
In affirming summary judgment for the employer, the court underscored that employees must follow the statutory path set out under c. 151B when pursuing discrimination or harassment claims, and that common law or alternative statutory claims cannot be used to circumvent these requirements.
Talk to an Experienced Workers’ Compensation Massachusetts Attorney
While the law provides remedies for discrimination and harassment, those remedies are strictly channeled through administrative and statutory processes. If you believe you have been subjected to harassment or discrimination at work, consulting with a knowledgeable attorney is essential to preserve your rights and avoid procedural pitfalls. James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is an experienced Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer who can explain your legal options and help you pursue the relief available under the law. You can contact Mr. Meehan by calling 508-822-6600 or by filling out the online form to schedule a consultation.