Cuddyer v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court)

On behalf of itself and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, NELF filed an amicus brief in this hostile workplace case which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took on direct appellate review. At issue was the proper interpretation of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination’s "continuing violation" regulation which extends the six-month statute of limitations in Chapter 151B. The Superior Court interpreted the regulation consistently with the federal courts’ interpretation of a similar federal provision. Cuddyer contends that a series of discrete episodes, each of which she considered to be sexual harassment, spanning more than twenty years constitutes a "continuing violation" and, since two alleged incidents occurred within six-months before she filed her MCAD complaint, all prior episodes are revived and actionable. She argues that the SJC should not adopt the federal analysis in sexual harassment cases because it is inconsistent with the policy of "remedying ongoing discriminatory policies." The NELF brief urged the SJC to follow the federal analysis under which an employee is required to sue within the limitations period which begins to run when the employee knows, or reasonably should have known, that she was sexually harassed. On July 12, 2001, the SJC decided that Massachusetts would not follow the federal approach, and found that Cuddyer should have the chance to show that episodes spanning twenty years could constitute a "continuing violation." Combined with the recent decision in the Dahill case, this appears to signal a desire by the SJC to carve out a distinct path in employment cases which does not favor employers. NELF believes that this result was unfortunate because the federal statute of limitations analysis balances the rights of employees to pursue matured hostile work environment claims with the rights of employers to defend against such claims when evidence is fresh. It also treats all plaintiffs alike and retains a meaningful statute of limitations. We shall continue to advocate a uniform, rather than unilateral, approach to the SJC whenever the opportunity arises.