Retaining a Meaningful Statute of Limitations in Hostile Work Environment Cases
On behalf of itself and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, NELF filed an amicus brief in this hostile workplace case which the SJC 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 contended that a series of discrete episodes of sexual harassment spanning more than twenty years constitutes a “continuing violation.” She further argued that since two of the alleged incidents occurred within six-months prior to the time she filed her MCAD complaint, all prior episodes were revived and actionable even though she considered each episode to be sexual harassment when it occurred. She argued 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. The federal 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 knowing plaintiffs alleging workplace discrimination alike and retains a meaningful statute of limitations. The SJC failed to follow the federal approach, and found that Cuddyer should have the chance to show that episodes spanning twenty years could constitute a “continuing violation.”
On behalf of itself and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, NELF filed an amicus brief in this hostile workplace case which the SJC 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 contended that a series of discrete episodes of sexual harassment spanning more than twenty years constitutes a “continuing violation.” She further argued that since two of the alleged incidents occurred within six-months prior to the time she filed her MCAD complaint, all prior episodes were revived and actionable even though she considered each episode to be sexual harassment when it occurred. She argued 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. The federal 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 knowing plaintiffs alleging workplace discrimination alike and retains a meaningful statute of limitations. The SJC failed to follow the federal approach, and found that Cuddyer should have the chance to show that episodes spanning twenty years could constitute a “continuing violation.”
RSS Feed
