Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B, § 4 (16), prohibits associational discrimination based on an employee’s spouse’s handicap. The court concluded that the employee plausibly alleged that he was terminated because of his wife’s costly disability-related medical condition, requiring reversal of dismissal of the discrimination claim. The court affirmed dismissal of the defamation claim because the complaint did not adequately allege publication by the employer.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B, § 4(16), prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of the handicap or disability of a person with whom the employee associates, specifically the employee's spouse.
- Whether the plaintiff adequately pleaded a defamation claim by alleging that the employer's false accusation became known among coworkers and the community without alleging how the statement was published.
Holdings
- Chapter 151B, § 4(16), prohibits associational discrimination based on handicap in the immediate-family circumstances presented. An employee may state a claim when the employer takes adverse employment action because of discriminatory animus toward the disability of the employee's spouse.
- The complaint failed to state a defamation claim because it did not allege facts showing that AliMed communicated the allegedly defamatory accusation to a third party.
Key quotations
“We answer that, in the circumstances of this case, it does.” (23)
“For all these reasons, we hold that associational discrimination based on handicap is prohibited under § 4 (16).” (37)
“The plaintiff has alleged a plausible set of facts for relief, and the dismissal of this claim must be reversed.” (37)
Factual background
Marc Flagg had worked for AliMed for approximately eighteen years and had received good performance reviews. After Flagg's wife underwent surgery for a brain tumor and required rehabilitative care, Flagg occasionally left work to pick up their daughter, with his manager's knowledge, without punching out. AliMed terminated Flagg, allegedly falsely asserting that he had been paid for hours he did not work, while Flagg alleged that the actual reason was AliMed's desire to avoid the substantial medical expenses associated with his wife's disability. The allegedly false misconduct accusation became known among coworkers and the community.
Procedural history
The Superior Court dismissed the defamation claim for inadequate pleading and the Massachusetts antidiscrimination claim on the ground that associational handicap discrimination was not recognized in Massachusetts. Flagg timely appealed to the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the appeal on its own motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed dismissal of the defamation claim, reversed dismissal of the antidiscrimination claim, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion; Count I remains dismissed, while dismissal of Count II is reversed.