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.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. 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.