Royal

Superior Court says MCAD Not Required for Public Accommodations Cases

Jul 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.

06 Mar, 2024
Walking a Fine Line  By Trevor Brice, Esq.
14 Feb, 2024
Effective January 1, 2024, all businesses conducting and engaging in business within the United States, have one more requirement to add to their list. The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), was passed by Congress in 2021, and recently took effect January 1, 2024. What is it? The Act requires businesses to report their “beneficial owners” to the government through a Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report. A “beneficial owner” is someone who owns 25% or more of the business or exercises substantial control over it. The reports are made to the United States Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which has been tasked with maintaining a national registry of beneficial owners of the reporting companies. Why was this passed? The Act is Congress’ attempt to prevent money laundering, terrorism financing, tax fraud, and other illicit activities including human and drug trafficking and securities fraud (aka prevent shell corporations and hiding money). While shell corporations are not illegal, they can be used to engage in activities that shield entities from legal liability, which is disfavored by the government and courts. Certain circumstances actually benefit from the use of a shell corporation, i.e. where companies seek to take advantage of doing business “offshore.” However, the “bad actors” who abuse this business structure have used such strategies for personal gain and, according to the government, hide from legal liability. Who does it effect? The new reporting requirement affects all businesses, corporations, and LLCs, no matter how big or small. It also affects non-US entities that are registered to conduct business with any state or territory within the United States. How do you comply? To remain in compliance with the reporting requirement, business must file the report by year end of 2024. If you create a business this year, 2024, but before January 1, 2025, you will have 90 calendar days after receiving notice of the company’s creation or registration to file the initial BOI report. Notice is actual notice received or public notice by the secretary of state, whichever is earlier. Failure to comply could lead to financial penalties or jail time. Such penalties include felony convictions, $500 daily (for every day of non-compliance) penalty up to $10,000, up to two years in prison. 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.
Share by: