Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
Employment discrimination claims frequently arise at the intersection of disability law and workers’ compensation benefits, particularly when an employee seeks workplace protections after receiving disability payments. Courts must balance statutory anti-discrimination principles with representations made in separate benefit proceedings. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court addresses whether an employee who received workers’ compensation benefits for temporary total disability may still pursue a disability discrimination claim under Massachusetts law. If you are dealing with a workers’ compensation issue in Massachusetts, it may be helpful to speak with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can evaluate your options and protect your rights.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant hospital in a patient admitting role that required frequent keyboarding and other repetitive hand movements. Over several years, the plaintiff experienced work-related physical conditions affecting the upper extremities, neck, and back, which were believed to be associated with computer use. In response, the defendant implemented various ergonomic modifications and adjusted the plaintiff’s work environment in an effort to reduce strain.
It is alleged that the plaintiff later took multiple leave of absences due to those conditions and received workers’ compensation benefits for temporary total disability during those periods. While on leave, the plaintiff underwent medical treatment, including surgery, and continued to report ongoing pain that limited the ability to perform job duties involving repetitive tasks.
Reportedly, after the plaintiff expressed interest in returning to work, a work simulation was arranged to assess functional capacity. The simulation involved gradually increasing keyboarding tasks, but the plaintiff discontinued participation after experiencing significant pain. A report generated through the workers’ compensation administrator concluded that the plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the original position.
It is reported that discussions then shifted toward the possibility of vocational rehabilitation or placement in an alternative position within the hospital that would comply with medical restrictions. The defendant evaluated potential options, including modified or composite roles, but ultimately determined that no suitable position was available. The defendant applied its one-year leave policy and terminated the plaintiff’s employment after a brief extension.
Allegedly, the plaintiff later applied for and obtained part-time reemployment with restrictions after further medical treatment. The plaintiff then filed suit asserting disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, violation of statutory rehiring preferences, and misrepresentation. A trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed. The court then transferred the case on its own initiative and reviewed the rulings.
Workers’ Compensation and Disability Discrimination Claims
The central issue on appeal was whether receipt of workers’ compensation benefits for temporary total disability automatically barred the plaintiff from claiming status as a qualified handicapped person under the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute.
The court rejected a categorical estoppel approach. It explained that a claim for disability benefits constitutes relevant evidence but does not automatically preclude an employment discrimination claim. The court emphasized that workers’ compensation determinations do not account for reasonable accommodation and may reflect legal conclusions rather than absolute factual incapacity. As a result, the court held that receipt of benefits alone does not foreclose a discrimination claim where a factual dispute exists regarding the ability to perform essential job functions with accommodation.
Despite that clarification, the court affirmed summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish a separate and necessary element of the claim. The record showed no reasonable expectation that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that Massachusetts law does not require an employer to create a new position, reassign an employee to a different role, or extend leave indefinitely. The plaintiff did not request accommodation to return to the original position and instead sought alternative employment that the employer was not obligated to provide.
The court also upheld summary judgment on the statutory hiring preference claim, explaining that the statute only applies to external applicants, not to existing employees. Finally, the court concluded that the misrepresentation claims failed due to the absence of evidence showing reliance or resulting harm.
Meet with a Trusted Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
If you have questions about workers’ compensation benefits, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney. James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is a trusted Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who assists clients throughout Massachusetts with workers’ compensation claims, and if you hire him, he will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach him at 508-822-6600 or submit a request through the firm’s online contact form to schedule a consultation and discuss your legal options.