Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
In Massachusetts, municipal employees alleging workplace discrimination or retaliatory treatment must navigate a complex landscape of statutory protections and common-law limitations. A recent decision from the Massachusetts court demonstrates how the Workers’ Compensation Act, procedural pleading rules, and the limited scope of certain tort doctrines can narrow the path for plaintiffs seeking redress. If you suffered an injury at work, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney at your earliest convenience.
Factual Background and Procedural History
It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed by a town fire department beginning in 1998. In late 2020, a town nurse reportedly contacted the fire chief after receiving an anonymous call from the wife of a firefighter. The caller conveyed that a firefighter’s son had tested positive for COVID-19, yet the firefighter had still been permitted to respond to emergency calls. Following this report, the chief allegedly addressed the department, expressing suspicion and anger over the breach of medical privacy. He stated he was “98% sure” he knew the identity of the informant and urged that individual to submit a resignation letter.
It is reported that the chief soon accused the plaintiff of being the source of the disclosure and urged him to resign. The plaintiff denied the accusation and purportedly produced text messages implicating a younger firefighter. Nonetheless, the chief persisted in his belief that the plaintiff or his wife made the call. In February 2021, the chief asserted that the town nurse had confirmed the plaintiff’s wife was the caller, which she denied. The chief again requested the plaintiff’s resignation and allegedly accused him of insubordination when he refused.
It is further reported that in June 2021, the municipality initiated termination proceedings. The plaintiff claimed that these proceedings failed to adhere to established protocols, and under pressure, he submitted his resignation on June 10, 2021. The plaintiff filed suit in 2024, asserting various claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants moved to dismiss several of the counts.
Exclusivity Provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act
The federal district court granted the defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. First, the court dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Count Five. The court held that the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act barred the claim. The exclusivity provision of the WCA renders it the sole remedy for injuries sustained during the course of employment, absent a timely waiver.
Although Massachusetts courts recognize a narrow exception for intentional torts occurring outside the scope of employment, especially those involving sexual harassment, the court found that age-related discrimination claims do not fall within that carve-out. Because the plaintiff’s allegations arose from employment-related discipline and supervisory conduct, the court concluded that the WCA provided the exclusive remedy.
Talk to a Dedicated Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
If you were injured at work and have questions about your rights, it is essential to talk to an attorney. Attorney James K. Meehan is a dedicated Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can help evaluate your claims and determine an appropriate course of action. Contact the Law Office of James K. Meehan at 508-822-6600 or reach out through our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.