Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Review of MCAD Public Hearings: Suggestions for Practice

  • Published:
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Public hearing decisions from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) offer public administrators, private employers, and researchers actionable information. This article analyzes the outcomes of these decisions over a 16-year period (2002–2018). Key findings are that private-sector employers were significantly more likely to lose at hearings than public-sector employers and that this gap appeared to result largely from differences in organizational size and gender-based claims. Smaller companies, in particular, lost at hearings significantly more than larger organizations in both sectors. Additional findings are that employers who participated in an interactive process were significantly more likely to prevail in reasonable accommodation disability cases and that appeals were rarely overturned by the MCAD’s Full Commission. Implications for administrators and human resource managers are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Cases Cited

  • Abel v. Kiessling Transit, Inc. 30 MDLR 43 (2008).

  • Abrams v. Paddington’s Place. 26 MDLR 149 (2004).

  • Aldridge v. Thomas O’Connor Constructors, Inc. 27 MDLR 41 (2005).

  • Anido v. Illumina Media. 35 MDLR 83 (2013).

  • Charton v. Suso. 36 MDLR 1 (2013).

  • Cortes v. Massachusetts Department of Children & Families. 37 MDLR 94 (2015).

  • Croken v. Hagopian Hotels. 35 MDLR 155 (2013).

  • Diiorio v. Willowbend Country Club, Inc. 33 MDLR 166 (2011).

  • Flanagan v. City of Lawrence School Department. 32 MDLR 58 (2010).

  • Griffin v. Eastern Contractors and S&R Construction Co. 30 MDLR 113 (2008).

  • Haynes v. General Electric Company. 36 MDLR 79 (2014).

  • Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. MCAD et al. 450 Mass. 327 (2008).

  • Mathis v. Phillips Chevrolet, Inc., 269 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2001).

  • Mills v. A.E. Sales, Inc. 35 MDLR 163 (2013).

  • Morse v. Massasoit Community College. 29 MDLR 134 (2007).

  • Murphy v. S&H Construction Inc. 36 MDLR 160 (2014).

  • Nagle v. Fairfield Financial Mortgage Group, Inc. 32 MDLR 179 (2010).

  • Nixon v. Tony’s Barber Shop. 37 MDLR 192 (2015).

  • Osorio v. Standhard Physical Therapy. (2018).

  • Richner v. Highland Pizza. 32 MDLR 164 (2010).

  • Roisten v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. 37 MDLR 197 (2015).

  • Ross v. MBTA. 24 MDLR 18 (2002).

  • Santos v. X-Treme Silkscreen & Design. 38 MDLR 192 (2016).

  • Savage v. Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission. 38 MDLR 105 (2016).

  • Sawyer v. Wimpy’s Restaurant. 31 MDLR 27 (2009).

  • Schillace v. Enos Home Oxygen Therapy, Inc. 39 MDLR 59 (2017).

  • Stonehill College v. MCAD et al. 441 Mass. 549 (2004).

  • Strothers v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections. 27 MDLR 155 (2005).

  • Sun v. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. 36 MDLR 85 (2014).

  • Williams v. Karl Storz Endovision, Inc. 26 MDLR 156 (2004).

  • Hughes v. Cranberry Dental Associates. (2018).

  • Moore v. Small World Learning. (2010).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carlozzi, M. A Review of MCAD Public Hearings: Suggestions for Practice. Employ Respons Rights J 31, 149–164 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-019-09336-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-019-09336-9

Keywords

Navigation