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
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers

In The News
Jun 26, 2026
Brian McGrath Discusses Far-Reaching Impact of a NY Foreclosure Ruling on Mortgage Industry



