Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the court addressed the issue of whether a direct appeal from a finding of no probable cause by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) is permissible. The court clarified that such an appeal is not allowed. Instead, to seek certiorari review under General Laws chapter 249, the complainant must demonstrate the existence of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, the absence of reasonably adequate remedies, and substantial injury or injustice. The court focused on the adequacy of remedies, highlighting that under General Laws chapter 151B, section 9, a complainant may file an action in Superior Court 90 days after the MCAD proceedings. The plaintiff in this case took advantage of this provision by amending a prior Superior Court action to include claims previously dismissed by the MCAD. The court concluded that this statutory remedy sufficiently enables the plaintiff to pursue their discrimination claims, and the absence of a probable cause finding does not hinder this process. Other issues raised by the plaintiff were dismissed as lacking merit. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment, emphasizing the availability of a complete remedy in Superior Court for any errors by the MCAD.
Legal Issues Addressed
Ability to Amend Complaint in Superior Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff amended a prior action in Superior Court to include claims dismissed by the MCAD, thus enabling the pursuit of those claims.
Reasoning: The plaintiff has amended a prior action in Superior Court to include claims of discrimination dismissed by the MCAD, thus gaining access to pursue those claims.
Certiorari Review Requirements under G. L. c. 249subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff must demonstrate a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, lack of other reasonably adequate remedies, and substantial injury or injustice to seek certiorari review.
Reasoning: To seek a certiorari review under G. L. c. 249, a complaining party must demonstrate: 1) a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, 2) a lack of all other reasonably adequate remedies, and 3) substantial injury or injustice from the proceeding.
Direct Appeal from MCAD Findingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A direct appeal from a finding of no probable cause by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is not permissible under the law.
Reasoning: A direct appeal from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) finding of no probable cause is not permitted.
Impact of MCAD's Probable Cause Finding on Superior Court Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The lack of a probable cause finding by the MCAD does not prevent the initiation of a Superior Court action nor affect the plaintiff's ability to seek redress.
Reasoning: The lack of a probable cause finding by the MCAD does not obstruct the initiation of the Superior Court action nor adversely affect the plaintiff's ability to seek redress.
Reasonably Adequate Remedy under G. L. c. 151B.9subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The existence of a statutory remedy allowing the plaintiff to file an action in Superior Court after 90 days from the MCAD proceeding constitutes a reasonably adequate remedy.
Reasoning: The document primarily addresses the second requirement, concluding that a “reasonably adequate remedy” exists under G. L. c. 151B.9, which allows a party to file an action in Superior Court after 90 days from the MCAD proceeding.