Massachusetts Injury Lawyers Blog
When an employee is injured or harassed in the workplace, one of the first questions that arises is whether the claim belongs in the workers’ compensation system or in civil court. Massachusetts law generally requires employees to pursue remedies for workplace injuries through the Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides benefits for medical care and lost wages. At the same time, the law draws a boundary between physical and psychological injuries compensable under the statute and the kinds of discrimination or harassment claims that may be pursued under separate statutes. A recent federal decision provides an important reminder of how the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act interacts with claims of harassment and retaliation. If you suffered harm of any nature in the workplace, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.
History of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff, employed as an office manager by the defendant union, alleged a series of escalating acts of sexual harassment by her supervisor. The conduct included inappropriate comments, intimidation, and ultimately indecent exposure. The plaintiff claimed that these actions caused her both physical and psychological harm. In addition to her discrimination and retaliation claims, the plaintiff sought damages under common-law theories such as negligent infliction of emotional distress.
It is further reported that the defendants moved to dismiss portions of the complaint, arguing that the Workers’ Compensation Act barred certain claims. Specifically, the defendants contended that the Act provides the exclusive remedy for personal injuries arising out of employment, which includes many forms of emotional distress and related harms. The plaintiff responded that her injuries were not limited to those covered by the Act and that her claims should be allowed to proceed independently.
Analysis Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity
The court began by explaining the exclusivity principle under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 152. The Act establishes a tradeoff: employees receive no-fault benefits for work-related injuries, but in return, they relinquish most civil claims against employers for those injuries. Courts have long held that emotional distress arising out of workplace conduct is generally within the scope of the Act. As such, common-law claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault, or related theories are typically barred when the injuries alleged stem from incidents at work.
The plaintiff in this case attempted to distinguish her claims by characterizing the harassment and intimidation as intentional, unlawful acts that fell outside the compensation system. The court acknowledged that some intentional torts may escape the exclusivity bar, but emphasized that negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in particular are precluded because they are precisely the type of harm contemplated by the statute. Accordingly, the court dismissed those claims as barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.
Consult a Knowledgeable Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Attorney
The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act provides important protections for employees, but it also limits the ability to bring separate lawsuits for injuries connected to employment. If you were hurt at work and have questions about your options, you should consult a lawyer. Attorney James K. Meehan of the Law Office of James K. Meehan is a knowledgeable Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney who can help you protect your rights under the Act. For a confidential consultation, contact the firm at 508-822-6600 or reach out through the online form.