Massachusetts Lawyer Blog

Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities in Massachusetts disability cases, arising under Federal and MA Discrimination laws, may have different meanings in different contexts.

If you are being discriminated against due to a disability or perceived disability there may be a number of legal claims for you to consider to aid in protecting your rights.The enforcement of disability discrimination laws can involve different courts or commissions and may require various types of expert evidence and testimony.

The MA Disability Law Center offers a chart on Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities and provides some examples of legal resources which may be available as a starting place.

Attorney John Parry has authored the book, Disability Discrimination Law, Evidence and Testimony. A Comprehensive Reference Manual for Lawyers, Judges and Disability Professionals, which covers a host of topics your lawyer or disability advocate may consider in handling your disability discrimination case.

Additionally, The Massachusetts Office on Disability (MOD) has prepared an online pamphlet to:

increase awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities, both by persons with disabilities themselves and by the larger community. Other goals of the Office include: the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities; the creation of a barrier free environment; the improvement of the state’s services delivery system for persons with disabilities, and the creation of fully integrated and accessible education, housing, transportation and employment in the public and private sectors.

Topics listed include:

• INTRODUCTION
• ABUSE / NEGLECT / TREATMENT CONDITIONS
• ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS
• AUTOMOBILES & TRANSPORTATION
• DISABILITY COMMISSIONS
• EDUCATION
• EMPLOYMENT
• EQUAL RIGHTS
• HATE CRIMES
• HOUSING
• PUBLIC PLACES & PROGRAMS
• SERVICE ANIMALS
• TELECOMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY
• VOTING
• WHEELCHAIRS
• ZONING

Attorney Kevin Whitaker serves as a town councilor and as an appointed member of the Town of Weymouth, MA Commission on Disabilities.

Do you know what's being said about you on the internet? Whether you're a Massachusetts small business owner, an individual, or a parent, are you monitoring the conversations about you, your business, or your family taking place on the internet?

Check out What Should Every Company Be Monitoring? for a list of ideas.

You can't respond to what you don't know about. I use alerts and RSS feeds to help stay on top of issues and conversations involving our Weymouth, MA law firm and our Massachusetts clients. With more and more reputation attacks and defamation cases arising on the internet (as well as speculative and plainly erroneous information), this is likely to be growth area in law and business.

This morning my daughter suggested we take the net (from that game where you hit the thing that looks like an empty ice cream cone) and use it to play volleyball.  I knew immediately she was talking about the net from the old badminton set because the "empty ice cream cone" was certainly the birdie we hit back and forth about a month ago.  In communication and in law context is everything -- both combined can lead to real value.

You shouldn't need to talk in legal mumbo jumbo to get your point across or to achieve the result you desire.  Find a lawyer who knows the law but also gets where you are coming from.  Seek out an attorney who will invest in building a relationship with you.  This is the foundation for providing value -- a real value that seeks to first understand and then meet your needs.  Anything else is just an empty ice cream cone...

While not a Massachusetts finding, the New York Times in an article entitled Legal Drugs Kill Far More Than Illegal, Florida Says, states:

An analysis of autopsies in 2007 released this week by the Florida Medical Examiners Commission found that the rate of deaths caused by prescription drugs was three times the rate of deaths caused by all illicit drugs combined.
...
The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.

The article also states,

The report’s findings track with similar studies by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which has found that roughly seven million Americans are abusing prescription drugs. If accurate, that would be an increase of 80 percent in six years and more than the total abusing cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, Ecstasy and inhalants.

It's been a Happy Fathers' Day, made so by my children. We are preparing to go visit my father (and for a swim in his pool). I did a quick email check before we head out. An email I received from the Kingsbury Club in Duxbury states,

"Drowning is the #1 cause of death in children under the age of 5 in the state of Massachusetts."

Infant Swimming Resource is a comprehensive drown prevention swim program where a life saving technique and a swim skill are taught to children from age 6 months to 6 years.

Happy Fathers' Day but keep an extra eye on those kids when they're around water.

While not specific to Massachusetts, a recent AAJ Law News Digest (by email, June 5, 2008) cited three articles illustrating interesting developments in arbitration and law, as well as an interesting poll.

Costs vs. Benefits in Arbitration

In No Room for Error in Arbitration?, Thomas E.L. Dewey and Kara Siegel, New York Law Journal, June 03, 2008, write:

Arbitration of commercial disputes has become increasingly common, due in part to the widely held perception that arbitration is a less expensive and more expeditious method of dispute resolution. Recent court decisions, however, have underscored the fact that those perceived benefits come at a price: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April that parties cannot agree to a higher standard of judicial review of arbitration awards, and appeared to question the validity of a long-standing doctrine that does permit courts to overturn arbitration awards that are in "manifest disregard" of the law. The net result: parties who agree to arbitrate their disputes should understand that it will be very difficult to obtain relief from an erroneous arbitration award.

Franchise Concerns in Arbitration

In Pressure Grows to Rethink the Use Of Mandatory-Arbitration Clauses By Richard Gibson, he states:

Most franchise contracts once called for mandatory arbitration of issues, rather than going to court. But these days there is growing pressure -- from franchisees, judges, Congress and even some franchisers -- to rethink that longstanding arrangement. 'The trend toward arbitration has pretty much ended,' says Peter Lagarias, a franchisees' attorney in San Rafael, Calif. Among the concerns is that there is no guaranteed right of appeal. 'You have to take what the arbitrator decides,' says Joshua Becker, an in-house counsel for fast-food franchiser Kahala Corp. For that reason, he says, Kahala, whose brands include Blimpie submarine sandwiches and TacoTime, favors resolving issues with franchisees in court."

Doctors Not Treating Patients without Arbitration

The Tampa Tribune Editorial, New 'Hello' In Health Care: Sign Here Not To Sue, states:

"It's not uncommon today for a woman visiting her gynecologist to give up her right to sue if something goes wrong. The doctor simply won't treat her unless she agrees to take any potential claim to an arbitration panel rather than the courts. The same goes for many acute-care hospitals and nursing homes, where stressed-out families with little choice are handed 60-odd pages of documents to sign. Sandwiched near the end, the mandatory-arbitration agreement gets the briefest of explanations. Binding arbitration - not health precautions and explanations - is the new 'hello' in health care. It's a physician's answer to the threat of litigation and the high cost of malpractice insurance. Like some trial lawyers who have convinced clients to sign away their constitutional rights to limited legal fees, doctors are getting patients to sign away their constitutional right to sue, too. This troubling new practice is a barrier to the doctor-patient relati onship, akin to signing a pre-nuptial agreement before getting married. The practice is a form of blackmail: Sign it or get out."

Consumer Poll Results on Arbitration

The AAJ on their webites provide the article, New Poll: Americans Say “No Thanks” To Binding Arbitration:

Washington, DC—Americans generally disapprove of binding arbitration provisions in consumer contracts as an alternative to civil legal proceedings involving a judge or jury, according to a recent national poll by survey firm Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc.

“Mandatory binding arbitration doesn’t give consumers a choice,” said American Association for Justice President Kathleen Flynn Peterson. “This poll proves that when asked to choose, consumers overwhelmingly say ‘no thanks’ to unfair arbitration agreements. Arbitration can only be a valid and effective method of resolving disputes when both parties agree voluntarily.”

Consumers are sometimes required to sign a contract with a company when purchasing products or services ranging from cell phones to nursing home care. These contracts often include a binding arbitration provision which states the consumer agrees to have any dispute with the company decided by an arbitrator, rather than by a judge or jury in a civil legal proceeding.

Binding arbitration has even been enforced in nursing home deaths. Massachusetts resident John Donahue suffered an eye injury so severe that it required removal of his eye while under the care of a nursing home. The infection caused by his injury eventually led to his death. When his daughter Marlene Owens went to file a claim against the nursing home corporation she was told that her father signed a binding arbitration agreement without any family members present. The nursing home insists that the case be taken to arbitration and the case is currently pending.

According to the polling, when consumers learn that the company picks the arbitrator, and they give up their right to take the case to court and binding arbitration applies even if they are seriously injured, 81 percent disapprove.

The poll also shows broad support for Congressional legislation called the “Arbitration Fairness Act” that seeks to protect Americans from abusive arbitration agreements. The legislation would ensure that the decision to arbitrate be made voluntarily and after a dispute has arisen. In addition, the legislation enjoys very strong support across party lines with no statistically significant differences between Democrats (+38) and Republicans (+37).

Last week, the U.S. House and Senate passed The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 conference agreement containing a voluntary arbitration provision which would allow farmers to opt out of binding mandatory arbitration clauses at the time they sign a contract with a processing company. The enactment of this provision would mark a significant step forward for farmers who are subject to these abusive contracts.

Summary

Is arbitration right for you? What are your downsides and upsides? These are questions to consider anytime you're faced with an arbitration clause or are considering including one in your contracts. The larger issues remains, are forced arbitration agreements fair and should they be allowed under law? It appears both consumers and companies are now giving this some additional thought.

Something to think about the next time a defense expert or doctor treats a car accident victim with disdain. Perhaps they don’t really dislike the injured person (who they’re showing disgust towards). Maybe they’ve just been coached by the insurance company’s defense lawyer as part of the “litigation plan.”

Although not from Massachusetts, defense attorney Jenifer L. Kienle generally discusses how mental health professionals and experts should be coached to avoid forming favorable impressions of an injured car accident victim. In her article, “The New Science of Stress - Why Defending a Fender Bender Lawsuit When the Plaintiff Claims Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome Requires a New Litigation Plan,” she states:

Finally, choosing a defense expert also requires an understanding that treaters in the mental health field frequently become involved with a patient, and while exploring their personality, subconsciously begin to "like" the plaintiff. … be alert to any defense expert who, after spending considerable time interviewing the plaintiff, reports his/her impression of the plaintiff in complimentary terms. This may be a sign the expert's professional judgment (and ultimate diagnosis) is impeded by favorable feelings toward the plaintiff. Avoid this trap with early, frequent and candid discussions with the expert so that his/her favorable impressions of the plaintiff can be managed. [bold added for emphasis]

If you’ve been injured in a car accident, the stress can be real. It can cause anxiety, loss of sleep, fear of driving, and many other emotional and physical symptoms. Don’t ever let a supposed "expert" make you feel bad or question the legitimacy of what you are going through. You’ve suffered enough and it wasn’t your fault. Remember, even though they’re “professionals” they’re not being paid to like you. As you can see from above, some "defense experts" are even being coached to ensure they don’t. They're not being genuine and they're not playing fair, you need an advocate who can understand what you're going through and who isn't afraid to challenge the defense expert's bias or the people who pay them.

Age Discrimination

A Supreme Court decision extends federal workers' rights in filing age-bias suits by a vote of (6-3). A U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston's ruling (upholding a lower court's dismissal) was overturned. The ruling allows federal employees retaliated against (because of their discrimination complaints) to pursue lawsuits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Prior to this case, it was argued the ADEA only applied to private sector workers. This case establishes it applies to federal employees as well.

Racial Discrimination

Also, in a vote (7-2), the Supreme Court ruled a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (known as known as section 1981) covers claims of retaliation following complaints about discrimination based on race. The dissents in both these cases were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. While Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in only in the age bias case, he was with the majority in the racial discrimination case.

With rights expanding, the question becomes how do you prove discrimination. This led to interest in the "me too" evidence case. However, for now no new answers emerge form the Court on this issue.

Me Too Evidence

George Lenard, reports on his blog, George's Employment Blawg, in detail about the issue of "me too" evidence in discrimination cases:

In its recent unanimous decision in Sprint v. Mendelsohn, the Supreme Court largely avoided the tough issue before it: admissibility of “me-too” evidence in discrimination cases — testimony of other employees who believed they too had been discriminated against.

Genetic Information Discrimination On May 21, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) protecting people from discrimination based on genetic material. GINA becomes effective November 21, 2009. A general "primer" on GINA is covered at the Genetic Genealogist.

All and all, May has been a discriminating month...

Whether you’re a passenger, driver, or pedestrian in a Massachusetts auto accident, the insurance issues can be tricky. It’s not uncommon for someoe injured in a car accident to go see a medical provider thinking their medical care should be covered by the person who caused their accident. If it’s not covered, they believe their medical insurance company should cover the bills. After all, that's why we pay so much for all this insurance, right? But did you know that thinking the insurance issues are simple and will take care of themselves could lead to receiving big bills for unpaid medical expenses?

The failure to take the right steps with insurance coverage in MA accidents can lead to a bill going unpaid and later ending up in collection. This is not a good result for someone who was injured by another in a car accident. Here’s a very basic overview for someone injured in an accident. (For simplicity sake, I’ll assume no time was missed from work, but that’s a bad assumption for lawyers to make in most serious car accidents.)

The first $2,000 in medical bills should be paid by your Auto Insurer’s Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance benefits. If you have health insurance, then your health insurance provider should pay for claims beyond the first $2,000 unless you have MedPay benefits under your auto insurance policy. If you have MedPay, a recent case confirms your health insurer may defer coverage to the MedPay insurer and the MedPay policy should pay until it maxes out its payments in accordance with the policy. Then, your health insurer would make the remaining payments. For the purposes of this post, I won’t get into how these issues also relate to settlements and trials.

No matter what, however, don't make the costly mistake of going outside your health insurance plan or you risk having to pay for the medical services out of your own pocket. “[E]ven when there is health insurance, PIP does not cover claims denied by a health insurance provider because the insured has failed to comply with the health insurance contract, for example by seeking out-of-network care.” Dominguez v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 429 Mass. 112, 115-117 (1999).

If you don’t have health insurance, then your PIP benefits should pay the first $8,000 in claims and if you have MedPay benefits, it should pay until the coverage limit is reached.

The interplay of PIP, MedPay and Health Insurer issues was recently addressed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) concluding there is “… nothing in the statutory language governing PIP or MedPay to prohibit health insurers from deferring coverage due to the existence of MedPay benefits...” Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company vs. Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. SJC-09944 (slip opinion)

Justice Bostford, writing for the court, provides a statutory framework of the insurance issues raised.

Statutory framework. The Massachusetts "no-fault" insurance plan, adopted in 1970, originally provided for PIP benefits (up to $2,000) to be paid in place of tort recovery for injuries that caused less than $500 in medical expenses. See § 34A (defining "[p]ersonal injury protection"), as amended through St. 1970, c. 670, §§ 1, 2; G. L. c. 90, § 34M, inserted by St. 1970, c. 670, § 4; G. L. c. 231, § 6D, inserted by St. 1970, c. 670, § 5. See also Pinnick v. Cleary, 360 Mass. 1, 5-10 (1971). In 1988, in an effort to bring the statutory amounts in line with escalating medical costs and further to control automobile insurance premiums, the Legislature increased the tort threshold to $2,000 and increased PIP coverage to $8,000, but provided that PIP would pay only the first $2,000 in medical expenses in cases where the insured also had health insurance that would cover expenses above that amount. See § 34A, as amended through St. 1988, c. 273, §§ 15-16; G. L. c. 231, § 6D, as amended by St. 1988, c. 273, § 55. See also Creswell v. Medical W. Community Health Plan, Inc., 419 Mass. 327, 329-330 (1995). This "coordination of benefits" scheme providing for the sharing of costs between automobile and health insurers is expressed in two sentences in the final paragraph of § 34A:

"[P]ersonal injury protection provisions shall not provide for payment of more than two thousand dollars of expenses incurred within two years from the date of accident for [medical and funeral services] if, and to the extent that, such expenses have been or will be compensated, paid or indemnified pursuant to any policy of health, sickness or disability insurance . . . . No policy of health, sickness or disability insurance . . . shall deny coverage for said expenses because of the existence of personal injury protection benefits."

§ 34A, as amended through St. 1988, c. 273, § 16. Under these provisions, PIP only covers medical expenses above $2,000 if they are not covered by health insurance. Moreover, even when there is health insurance, PIP does not cover claims denied by a health insurance provider because the insured has failed to comply with the health insurance contract, for example by seeking out-of-network care. Dominguez v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 429 Mass. 112, 115-117 (1999).

MedPay benefits are not part of the statutory scheme that established the no-fault system with its central feature of PIP benefits. Since 1943, G. L. c. 175, § 111C, has authorized, for various types of liability insurance policies, including automobile policies, optional endorsements to provide coverage for reasonable medical and related expenses. G. L. c. 175, § 111C, inserted by St. 1943, c. 375, § 1. Beginning in 1968, however, under G. L. c. 175, § 113C, automobile insurers doing business in the Commonwealth have been required to offer every person purchasing a policy the option of purchasing "medical coverage, so called . . . to a limit of at least five thousand dollars." G. L. c. 175, § 113C, as amended by St. 1968, c. 643, § 3. This obligation to offer optional medical, or MedPay, benefits is reflected in Part 6 of the standard Massachusetts automobile insurance policy (policy). In particular, Part 6 of the seventh edition of the policy, applicable to the accident in this case, provides in relevant part: "Under this Part, we will pay reasonable expenses for necessary medical and funeral services incurred as a result of an accident. . . . We must sell you limits of $5,000 per person if you want to buy them." Thus, it appears that G. L. c. 175, § 111C, authorizes automobile insurers to offer MedPay coverage, and G. L. c. 175, § 113C, requires them to do so. Accord Morin v. Massachusetts Blue Cross, Inc., 365 Mass. 379, 385 & n.5 (1974).
[Footnotes deleted]

In the end, it’s important to realize protecting your case (and your credit rating) is not simply about liability but also requires dealing with complicated insurance issues. Failure to take the right steps in a Massachusetts auto accident can lead to collections efforts against you and ultimately to you paying out of pocket for an injury (even when you were a passenger or completely blameless.)

A study entitled Legal Liability: The Consequences of School Injury in the Journal of School Health, May 2007, Vol. 77, No. 5, (Abstract only) examined cases involving schools, lawsuits, and injuries. Schools paid awards about 2/3 of the time, either by verdict (26.8%) or settlement (40.4%). The average case lasted just under 4 years from the time of injury to the case’s resolution by trial or settlement. Surprisingly, they found it difficult to predict the cases resulting in an award, stating: “this study found no difference on any case characteristics between cases that resulted in awards and those that did not.”

They authors concluded,

Many of the injuries documented in this study may have been prevented through better maintenance of school facilities, equipment and playing fields; addition of safety features and equipment; improved supervision of students; education of school officials, students, and parents; and enforcement of building codes and rules, especially during sports and recreational activity.

Award Range: $1 to $15,398,762; Mean: $562,915; Median: $50,000; 25th percentile: $9,750; and 75th percentile: $300,000.

Public records can be helpful in government matters but also for business purposes, in automobile and personal injury cases, or many others types of litigation.

People sometime ask, "How do I get a copy of a local government record?" In Massachusetts, the Secretary of State has published A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, updated January 2008.

Records are presumed public unless they fall under one of sixteen exclusions, but fees may be charged to obtain them.

The difference between the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Massachusetts Public Records Law is FOIA applies to federal records while the Massachusetts Public Records Law applies to state and local records.

LAW PASSED: A new Massachusetts labor or wage law will create treble (triple) damages against companies in wage and hour violation cases. This departs from federal courts and other states where an employer can raise a “good faith” defense and avoid treble damages.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports,

“Previously, under a 2005 Supreme Judicial Court decision, treble damages were available only in cases in which the court concluded that an employer had willfully and intentionally committed an infraction.”

“…the [Massachusetts] Legislature passed a bill on April 15 that makes Massachusetts the first state in the country to impose automatic treble damages against any business that violates wage and hour laws.”

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT: From a Massachusetts employee's perspective, this new labor law provides an incentive for employees and their lawyers to pursue claims. A $10,000 claim is now a $30,000 claim, plus attorneys’ fees. Apply this multiplier to multiple claimants and the numbers can add up quickly.

UNION ORGANIZING BENEFIT: Labor unions should celebrate this law’s enactment. From their perspective, this law will provide an additional tool for protecting employees’ wages.

Additionally, it may become a useful tool for union organizers who come across wage claim violations in non-unionized companies. Organizers can educate employees of their rights; motivate an employee to pursue a claim; and then use the cost and risk of litigation as a bargaining chip against a target company. I’ve seen this work with success in past organizing campaigns involving National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaints. With even higher stakes involved in Massachusetts wage cases now, I wouldn't be surprised to see this organizing strategy emerge on every union organizer’s radar soon.

DEFENSE STRATEGY: Nevertheless, the new threat of triple damages and attorneys fees in Massachusetts alone will likely impact the manner in which these cases are defended against. Defending these cases will require a reasonable assessment of the facts as well as the potential liabilities created by the new law. As in many areas of law, prevention still works best.

WAGE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: With higher liability exposure in Massachusetts, companies doing business here would be well served to review their procedures on wage issues, as well as their dispute resolution practices and procedures best suited for these and other disputes. It makes sense for companies of any size to establish a relationship with a lawyer who can respond to an issue when it arises, or even better, before.

LIVING WAGES & FAIRNESS: A recent Massachusetts AFL-CIO Weekly Labor Reader dated Friday April 18, 2008, quoted past U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level - I mean the wages of decent living."

Every person is entitled to the pay they earn as an employee. At the same time, good employers who are trying to do right by their employees and are providing a living wage also deserve protection, especially in this tough economy.

Full disclosure, I had attended and graduated from the AFL-CIO Organizing Institute before organizing for several unions around the nation. My experiences there and elsewhere helped guide me in deciding to attend law school. I now represent both employers and employees.

Sexual harassment (or discrimination) in Massachusetts workplaces can take many forms creating liability for both individuals and companies. Earlier today, I talked with a good friend about his first day in a new job. Day one consisted of him filling out the usual forms, making introductions, and watching a video on sexual harassment in the workplace. He summed up his new company's sexual discrimination policy as, “don’t look, don’t touch.” While that may be a good message to absorb on day one, as a manager who could subject both his company and himself to liability under sexual harassment law, it may be helpful to know a bit more about it.

Formal workplace sexual harassment standards are set forth in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 151B. Additionally, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) issues guidelines regarding sexual harassment and what employees and employers should do to prevent, stop and respond to sexual harassment complaints. Two nonexclusive types of sexual harassment are known as: "quid pro quo" and "hostile work environment" harassment.

Quid pro quo harassment involves “sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when … submission to or rejection of such advances, requests or conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment or as a basis for employment decisions.”

Hostile Work Environment harassment includes “sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when … such advances, requests or conduct have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or sexually offensive work environment.”

Examples offered by MCAD of each type are:

quid pro quo harassment: termination; demotion; denial of promotion; transfer; alteration of duties, hours or compensation; or unjustified performance reviews.

hostile work environment: inappropriate touching; sexual epithets, jokes, gossip, sexual conduct or comments; requests for sex; displaying sexually suggestive pictures and objects; and leering, whistling, or sexual gestures.

While sexual harassment jokes may be funny in movies or sitcoms, discrimination can be devastating for someone suffering it in their employment. If you are the target of or subject to sexual harassment at the workplace then you need to act to preserve your rights in Massachusetts. While Massachusetts law did require claims to be filed within six months, changes in the law have extended the filing deadline to 300 days. Of course, laws and deadlines can change. Massachusetts discrimination and employment law has many nuances best navigated by a lawyer who takes the time to hear your case, identifies the applicable law, and knows how to protect your rights. Whether you work on the South Shore, are appearing in Boston before the MCAD, or have a claim best suited for Superior Court, don’t proceed without knowing your rights and how to protect them.