Massachusetts Lawyer for Employment Defense
Massachusetts Employment Defense Lawyer » Page 'Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Defines Pregnancy Discrimination Rights Against Small Employers'

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Defines Pregnancy Discrimination Rights Against Small Employers

In an important case decided today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has announced that the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act does allow a plaintiff who works for an employer with fewer than six employees to sue for pregnancy discrimination. The case clearly opens the door for additional pregnancy discrimination claims against Massachusetts employers.

However, preganancy discrimination claims against smaller employers still cannot be brought in the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, which has jurisdiction only over employers with six or more employees. Claims against smaller employers will proceed directly to court.

Prior to this ruling, it was unclear under Massachusetts law whether employers who did not fall within the jurisdictional limitations of the Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B (requiring 6 or more employees) could be sued for pregnancy discrimination. The SJC made it clear that these employers are not exempt from pregnancy discrimination claims.

Small employers will benefit from the fact that defending the claim will at least be less expensive than the two step process under G.L. c. 151B.

Larger employers are still required to defend pregnancy discrimination claims at the MCAD, where the claimant has the option of maintaining the claim for part of its handling, or all of its determination, as well as the option of removing the case to court. The employer does not have the option of removal.

The MCAD process is very expensive (and distracting) for any employer and the financial and business burden would have greatly impacted employers with fewer than 6 employees. From an economical and business perspective, MERA provides these employers with the right to defend claims just once, rather than duplicating their costs through the MCAD investigation process and then, if removed by the plaintiff, incur those costs and distractions once again in court.

For these smaller employers, one forum is more than enough for them to bear.

The case is THURDIN vs. SEI BOSTON, LLC.

If you would like to discuss the impact of this case on your business, please call me.

Like this post? Spread the word!
delicious digg google
stumbleupon technorati Yahoo!

Comments are closed.

Top of page / Subscribe to new Entries (RSS) / Terms of Use