Superior Court says MCAD Not Required for Public Accommodations Cases

July 14, 2021
Massachusetts Superior Court

In Peters v. Boston Properties Inc., et al., the Massachusetts Superior Court held that individuals alleging discrimination in places of public accommodation are not required to file a charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) before commencing a civil suit. This decision is from the state’s lowest court, and should a higher court weigh in on the issue, they may or may not agree. The case involved an incident where an African American woman visiting an upscale shopping center was tackled and restrained by a group of security officers. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them because they were not named as parties in the initial MCAD charge. Through a close reading of the relevant statutes, the Judge determined that the MCAD administrative process was not the exclusive remedy for discrimination in public accommodations, and thus, the MCAD charge was not required. Therefore, the plaintiff was able to proceed against defendants who were not named in the MCAD charge.


Massachusetts’ non-discrimination laws provide that filing a charge with the MCAD is the exclusive remedy for certain discriminatory acts, including discrimination in employment, lending, and housing. For cases involving these types of discrimination, a plaintiff must first file a charge with the MCAD before receiving a private right to sue. Filing a charge with the MCAD gives an opportunity for the commission to investigate and conciliate the plaintiff’s claim, and serves to notify the defendant.


An individual alleging discrimination in a place of public accommodation may have the option to either file a charge with the MCAD or file suit in Superior Court. Some plaintiffs may still choose to proceed before the MCAD as it may be a less complicated, less time-consuming, or less expensive process than filing suit in court.


In addition, the Superior Court Judge found that the plaintiff could proceed against the defendants who were not named in the MCAD charge even if the MCAD charge were required, because those defendants had notice and an opportunity to conciliate. Two of the unnamed defendants were corporate entities who, together with Boston Properties Inc., owned and operated the building where the incident occurred. The three corporate entities had a close business relationship and were represented by the same counsel. The other unnamed defendants were the security officers, though a video of their conduct during the incident was included with the MCAD charge. The judge concluded that the officers’ employer, who was named in the MCAD charge, could have discovered the officers’ identities either from viewing the video or from an internal investigation into the complaint. The judge found that all these factors were enough to avoid the dismissal of the charges against the defendants who were not named in the MCAD charge.


For any questions or concerns about this matter, or any other labor and employment matters, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at (413) 586-2288.

Brandon Calton admitted to the United States District Court of Connecticut

June 10, 2025
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.

Federal Court Vacates EEOC’s “Abortion Accommodation Mandate” in PWFA

By Heather Child • June 9, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck down a provision in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Background Information: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in December 2022, and it became effective in June 2023. The law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants or employees who have physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. In April 2024, The EEOC issued its final interpretation of the PWFA including abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions” thereby requiring employers to provide accommodations related to abortion. In May 2024, the states of Mississippi and Louisiana sued the EEOC, arguing that the interpretation conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and their respective state laws on abortion. In June 2024, Judge Joseph found that the EEOC exceeded its authority and issued a preliminary injunction postponing the effective date of the interpretation to provide accommodation for elective abortions until final judgment was entered in this matter. The final judgment was entered on May 21, 2025, that remanded the matter to the EEOC to revise the final rule and all related implementing regulations and guidances. Employer Takeaways: While employers are no longer (as of now) REQUIRED to provide accommodation for elective abortions, the remainder of the PWFA remains in full effect The decision to have or not have an abortion remains protected under Title VII The PWFA does not supersede state or local laws providing greater protection for pregnant workers. It is important to stay up to date on state regulations to ensure employers are complying with state laws. While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation.  If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.