Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff, acting individually and as administratrix of her deceased husband's estate, appealed the dismissal of her discrimination and breach of contract claims against a city. The plaintiff's deceased husband, Hubert, had initially filed a discrimination claim alleging age, race, and color discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Following Hubert's passing, the plaintiff filed claims in Superior Court. The court dismissed the discrimination claim, ruling it did not survive Hubert's death and that no MCAD complaint was filed by the plaintiff as required. On appeal, the court found procedural errors in dismissing the discrimination claim on exhaustion grounds, as the MCAD proceedings had not reached formal adjudication. However, the court upheld the dismissal of the breach of contract claim under the exclusivity of remedies provided by G. L. c. 151B. The court denied the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and to amend the complaint, citing unexcused delay and lack of merit in the proposed amendments. The appeal also failed to properly include subsequent orders denying reconsideration and amendment motions, affirming the original judgment. The court emphasized that the reasoning in Gasior regarding wrongful termination did not extend to the plaintiff's claims. Ultimately, the judgment against the plaintiff was affirmed, and her request for appellate attorney's fees and costs was denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Administrative Exhaustion Requirement under G. L. c. 151Bsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The requirement to exhaust administrative remedies was deemed inapplicable as the MCAD proceedings had not progressed to formal adjudication before Hubert's death.
Reasoning: The employment discrimination claim was also dismissed on procedural grounds, but this was deemed an error... the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies under G. L. c. 30A was not applicable.
Amendment of Complaints Post-Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's request to amend the complaint post-judgment was denied due to an unexcused delay and the proposed claim being a barred recast of an existing claim.
Reasoning: The plaintiff's request to amend her complaint, filed after final judgment, introduced a common-law contract claim related to a collective bargaining agreement that was already available, which was deemed an 'unexcused delay' by the third judge.
Denial of Motions for Reconsiderationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding that changes in decisional law do not warrant reopening a final judgment absent extraordinary circumstances.
Reasoning: Changes in decisional law do not constitute extraordinary circumstances that warrant reopening a final judgment, as established in Smith v. Arbella Mut. Ins. Co.
Exclusivity of Remedies under G. L. c. 151Bsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that G. L. c. 151B provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims, thereby barring common-law breach of contract claims related to discriminatory dismissals.
Reasoning: This exclusivity bars common-law breach of contract claims related to discriminatory dismissals.
Survival of Employment Discrimination Claims after Deathsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the plaintiff's employment discrimination claim did not survive the death of Hubert Robinson, as the rationale for survival under G. L. c. 151B was not applicable to claims other than wrongful termination.
Reasoning: The plaintiff argues that the second judge incorrectly ruled that Hubert’s employment discrimination claim did not survive his death, citing Gasior, which ruled that a wrongful termination claim under G. L. c. 151B.4(16) survives.