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

In The News
Aug 24, 2026
David Schultz Reviews a Humorous—But Important—FDCPA Procedural Ruling

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
115 Hinshaw Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch®

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
Hinshaw’s Landmark Tower Client Project Receives 2026 Top Projects Award

Press Release
Aug 19, 2026
Fernando Rivera-Maissonet Elected as HNBA Region II Governor and Board of Governors Member

Employment Law Observer
Aug 17, 2026
Massachusetts’ First Paid Family Medical Leave Act Verdict Yields $4.75 Million Award

Press Release
Aug 13, 2026
Lauren Campisi Recognized as a 2026 BTI Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting Group

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Aug 13, 2026
How Will Banks Be Impacted by the Proposed Regulation O Amendments?

Press Release
Aug 12, 2026
William Cook Honored With the Distinguished Service Award by the Chicago Bar Association

Webinar
Aug 12, 2026
John Ryan Presents on "Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today"

In The News
Aug 12, 2026
Scott Seaman Analyzes California’s New Pleading Standards for Excess Insurance Policy Claims


