 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas v. EDI Specialists8/15/2002
Bristol.
May 8, 2002.
Contribution. Indemnity. Anti-Discrimination Law, Employment. Actionable Tort. Limitations, Statute of.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 13, 2000.
A motion to dismiss a third-party complaint was heard by Ernest B. Murphy, J.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
We decide today whether an employer has a right of contribution or indemnification against an offending employee for alleged violations of G. L. c. 151B. Jennifer Thomas filed a discrimination action in the Superior Court pursuant to G.áL. c.á151B against her employer, EDI Specialists, Inc. In her complaint, she names Steven A. Mills, a fellow employee, as a primary offender. EDI filed a third-party complaint against Mills seeking contribution and indemnification in the event it is found liable to Thomas. Mills moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, claiming, inter alia, that G.áL. c.á151B does not provide for a right of contribution or indemnification against an employee. A judge in the Superior Court agreed with Mills and dismissed EDI's third-party complaint. We affirm.
1. Facts and procedural background.
We summarize the relevant facts from the Superior Court's order, supplemented by relevant information from the record. EDI is an eighteen- employee company located in Massachusetts. Thomas was hired by EDI as an implementation services manager, and Mills as an operations director. In her charge of discrimination before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (commission), Thomas named EDI as the sole respondent and claimed that, after the announcement of her pregnancy, she was subjected to continuous and ongoing discrimination. Specifically, she alleged that, after becoming pregnant, she was required to document "every minute" of her time and was harassed and subjected to derogatory comments. She claimed further that after the birth of her child, she was not returned to the assignment she had before her maternity leave as she had been promised, and she was also changed from a salaried to an hourly employee.
After waiting the requisite ninety days after the filing of her complaint with the commission, see G. L. c. 151B, á9, Thomas commenced an action in the Superior Court under G.áL. c.á151B, thereby transferring the case from the commission. EDI is the only defendant named in the complaint. Thomas alleged, inter alia, that EDI unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex and in connection with her pregnancy in violation of G. L. c. 151B. According to Thomas, Mills referred to her as the "Company Prego" and told her that her inability to travel was detrimental to EDI. Thomas also alleged discriminatory behavior by the company's president, Joseph Gilbody, and EDI itself for the failure to adopt company policies regarding sexual harassment and maternity leave.
EDI filed a third-party complaint against Mills seeking indemnification and contribution. A Superior Court judge granted Mills's motion to dismiss EDI's third-party complaint, reasoning that G. L. c. 231B, á1 (a), the statute providing for the right to seek contribution, only applies to tort claims, and a claim under G. L. c. 151B is not a "'tort-like' cause of action." EDI petitioned for interlocutory review of the Superior Court's order to a single justice of the Appeals Court, who granted EDI leave to file an interlocutory appeal. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion.
2. Discussion.
On appeal, EDI argues that an employer sued under G.áL. c.á151B may seek contribution and inde
Page 1 2 3 4 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|