Is it legal under Massachusetts state law for an employer to discriminate against an employee for his or her association with a disabled person? The answer is a resounding "no."  In Flagg v. Alimed, 466 Mass 23 (2013), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that an employer is prohibited from discriminating  against an employee based on his association with a handicapped individual.
      In Flagg, the plaintiff employee, Marc Flagg, had a wife with a disabling brain tumor.  The employer terminated Flagg when his wife was in the hospital, resulting in an immediate cancellation of his family's health insurance.  Flagg alleged that the employer terminated him because his wife had a serious and costly medical condition, which had rendered her totally disabled, for which the employer, through its health plan, was financially responsible.   He alleged that his employer had terminated him due to his association with his handicapped wife.
     The Supreme Judicial Court found that the Massachusetts employment discrimination statute prohibited the employer from discriminating against the employee based on his wife's disability.   While the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) has long interpreted state law to protect employees from discrimination for association with members of a protected class, this is the first time the Supreme Judicial Court has weighed in on the matter, clearing up any ambiguity as to whether there is a cause of action under state law for discrimination based on association with a disabled person.
     Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), which is federal law, employees associated with disabled individuals are explicitly protected from associational discrimination.    However, the ADA only protects employees who work for employers with 15 or more employees.  In contrast, the state employment discrimination statute covers workplaces with 6 or more employees.   Employees who work for employers with 6 to 14 employees can now rest assured that they are protected from discrimination based on their association with disabled individuals.
    Although the Supreme Judicial Court limited its holding to associational discrimination based on disability, employers would be wise to adopt practices that prohibit associational discrimination with individuals in classes based on race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity because federal courts and the MCAD have interpreted this type of discrimination to be illegal.

     With a tight job market, an internship can be a nice way to pad a young job seeker's resume.  According to the Washington Post, 55 percent of college seniors in 2012 had an internship or co-op experience during their college years.  Of those who held internships, almost half were unpaid. 
     There has recently been a wave of litigation that has brought into question the legality of many unpaid internships.  One recent high profile case was Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. in the Southern District of New York.  In that case, several unpaid interns on the set of the movie, Black Swan, sued Fox Searchlight Pictures alleging that they were employees and should have been paid minimum wage.  The judge ruled that Fox should have paid the interns because they should have been classified  as employees.   The judge followed criteria that were promulgated for unpaid internships in the private sector.
     Employers should be aware of the following six factors that the United States Department of  Labor has promulgated that unpaid internships in the private sector should meet:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
2.  The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
3.  The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

     Massachusetts employers should be especially be concerned about structuring their unpaid internships to be compliant because the failure to pay minimum wage triggers treble damages.  Employers may not get around the Wage Act by entering into special contracts with the employee exempting the employer's compliance with the Act.