Massachusetts’ Anti-Discrimination Laws Prohibit Associational Discrimination
1 min read
Aug 23, 2013
In a recent employment discrimination decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Massachusetts discrimination statute, M. G. L. c. 151B, encompasses a claim for "associational discrimination."
"The term 'associational discrimination' refers to a claim that a plaintiff, although not a member of a protected class himself or herself, is the victim of discriminatory animus directed toward a third person who is a member of the protected class and with whom the plaintiff associates."
In AliMed, the employee filed suit against his employer, alleging that his employer terminated him because of discriminatory animus toward his wife, who was disabled. According to the employee, the employer wanted to be free from the obligation of paying for the wife's costly medical treatment. The employer moved to dismiss the employee's complaint on the ground that, among other things, the employee's claim of employment discrimination did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the theory that the employer fired the employee because his wife was disabled was not recognized in the Commonwealth. The court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the employer and the employee appealed. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court transferred the appeal to this court on its own motion.
Upon review, the high court held that subjecting "an otherwise satisfactory employee to adverse employment decisions premised on hostility toward the handicapped condition of the employee's spouse, it is treating the employee as if he were handicapped himself — that is, predicated upon discriminatory animus, the employer treats the spouse's handicap as a characteristic bearing on the employee's fitness for his job." Based on its interpretation of legislative intent, the court held that the Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws include a "concept of associational discrimination."
Association discrimination is being recognized in more jurisdictions. Employers should take caution to ensure that policies prohibit all forms of discrimination, including discrimination due to association, and should ensure that decision makers are making employment-based decisions on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
Topics
Featured Insights

Press Release
Oct 5, 2026
Mitchel Chargo Selected to the Seventh Edition of the Global Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers Directory

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 2, 2026
Expansive New Commercial Financing Licensing Requirement Signed into Law in California

In The News
Oct 2, 2026
Spencer Kook Explores How AI is Reshaping the Insurance Workforce

In The News
Oct 1, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses Emerging Antitrust Risks Tied to Social Media Algorithms

Healthcare Alert
Sep 30, 2026
Feeding Better Outcomes: The OIG’s Compliance Roadmap for Food-As-Medicine Programs

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 30, 2026
Illinois Supreme Court Delivers a Third Key Win for Mortgage Lenders

In The News
Sep 28, 2026
Carol Rooney and Adam Topel Co-Author Article on Recent Developments in Appellate Advocacy

In The News
Sep 28, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses New Landmark California Wildfire Insurance Reforms

Event
September 27–29, 2026
Hinshaw Partners Discuss Key Compliance and Litigation Issues at the 2026 MBA Conference

Press Release
Sep 24, 2026
Hinshaw Recognized as a 2027 “Powerhouse in Litigation” by BTI Consulting


