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

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

