Royal

Massachusetts Federal Court Rules that a Discrimination Claim Under Title IX Can Proceed

August 31, 2021

Employers are familiar with Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based upon a person’s membership in certain protected categories. Employers in higher education are also familiar with Title IX, a federal law which prohibits discrimination under any program receiving federal financial assistance.


In a typical Title VII case, an employee will bring a claim in the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”). The MCAD requires that claims must be brought within three hundred (300) days of the alleged discriminatory act. The MCAD requirement is a relatively short limitation period, which means that employers will know relatively quickly when they are facing a discrimination claim. In a recent case, Harrington v. Lesley University, a U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts ruled that an employee could proceed with a discrimination claim under Title IX. The ruling is important because it establishes two separate potential causes of action under Title VII and Title IX. It is also important because there is no procedural requirement to file a Title IX claim in the MCAD. This means that higher education employers face a longer statute of limitations, and no procedural MCAD filing requirement, in claims brought under Title IX.


This is yet another example as to why it is important for employers to periodically review and update their anti-discrimination policies.


If you have any questions regarding investigation of employee allegations, or any other aspect of employment law, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: