Advertisement

July 25, 2014

Implications of a Massachusetts Workplace Bullying Bill

On June 25, 2013, the Massachusetts General Court’s (the State Legislature) Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development  held a hearing on, among other items, HB 1766, the Healthy Workplace Bill.  The bill would create a new Chapter 151G of the General Laws; Section 3(a) is the key provision.  It states “No employee shall be subjected to an abusive work environment.”  An abusive work environment under the bill is one where the employer or employees subjects the victim to “abusive conduct” intentionally causing physical or psychological harm.  “Abusive conduct” is defined as including repeated “derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets…conduct of a threatening, intimidating, or humiliating nature; or the sabotage or undermining of an employee’s work performance.” A single instance may be sufficient to give rise to a violation.   A claim may be made directly against the employer and the offending employee via direct lawsuit; unlike racial or sexual harassment claims, there is no prerequisite of filing with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.  A victim may be awarded back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, among other things.  It puts the burden on the employer to prove a defense that the complaint was the result of a reasonable performance evaluation, poor performance, or misconduct.

The law is being promoted in Massachusetts, with variants nationwide, to fill a perceived gap.  Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress may require a physical manifestation that does not always occur.  Claims for tortious interference with contractual relationship lack an emotional distress component and may require additional proof to give rise to liability.  Defamation claims are of no use when the vitriol is actually true, though it is said offensively.  Anti-discrimination laws only protect against harassment on the basis of protected class status (e.g., race, gender, religion, orientation). 

Such a law, if passed, should give a Massachusetts employer pause.  If an employee has a bad day and becomes angry with another employee, the employer may become liable.  If an employer places an employee on a performance improvement plan due to poor performance, the employer has to prove the performance was poor, unlike simply arguing such claim is not pretext as in discrimination claims.  An accused employer or employee may be protected, however, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Prof. Eugene Volokh has analyzed a number of cases on the question of workplace harassment and the First Amendment, finding that the issue remains an open one. 

© 2014 by Raymond Law Group LLC.

About the Author

Senior Associate

Jay Marshall Wolman has served as an advocate or neutral in hundreds of contested matters, appearing before state and federal courts and agencies in Massachusetts and throughout the United States. His experience includes commercial disputes, consumer class actions, and personal injury, including products liability. As a civil litigator, a substantial portion of Attorney Wolman's practice has included representation of employers and employees in workplace matters, including discrimination on the bases of race, sex, pregnancy and disability, wage and hour disputes, occupational safety...

860-266-4925

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.