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
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

In The News
Sep 3, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Analyzes FTC Suit over Amazon’s Advertising Pricing Practices

In The News
Sep 2, 2026
Yvonne Ocrant Discusses Horse Business Legal Protection on the EquineRevShare Podcast

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 2, 2026
Two Key Wins for Mortgage Lenders on Illinois Statute of Limitations

Press Release
Sep 2, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Reappointed to CBA's Antitrust & Trade Regulation Section Executive Committee


