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.
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.
RSS Feed