Under Massachusetts law, the word retaliation is defined as; an employer taking adverse action against an employee as a result of the employee engaging in some form of protected activity. Retaliation is a separate claim from discrimination, it can be found in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B. Actually, the word retaliation is not used in the law; however, courts often use it as an abbreviation for anti-discrimination statutes. Anti-retaliation laws allow liability against individuals and not just employers.
Under Massachusetts Law 151B there are two different subsections that prohibit unlawful retaliation and they are §4 (4) and §4 (4A). §4 (4) states; “for any person, employer labor organization or employment agency to dismiss, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because they have objected to practices prohibited under this chapter or because they have filed a complaint, testified, assisted in any proceeding under section five of MGL 151B §4 (4) “. MGL 151B §4 (4A) states that; “for any person to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with another person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected by this chapter, or to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with that other person for having helped or encouraged any another person in the exercise or enjoyment of said right “.
Under Section 8.30 of Mass Practice, it establishes that in order to establish a case of retaliation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he engaged in legally protected conduct and that he suffered an adverse labor action, and that there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse labor action. For one to be successful in a relationship, one must demonstrate the following;
- The complainant must show that he reasonably believed in good faith that his employer engaged in unfair discrimination.
- That you acted reasonably in response to this belief.
- That the employer’s desire to retaliate was your determining factor in taking an adverse employment action.
In order for the plaintiff to prove the first part of his retaliation case, he must show that he participated in an act protected by chapter 151B, section 4 (4), and those who have objected to any practice prohibited by MGL c. 151B and those who file complaints or assist in any proceedings with MCAD (Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination) are known as “opposition” and “participation” clauses.
The application of the opposition clause can be misleading because the employee must allege that the retaliatory conduct was due to the employee’s opposition to practices prohibited under MGL c. 151B.
The participation clause refers to MCAD procedures and c.151B does not cover participation in internal discrimination investigations unless participation amounts to protected opposition, such as assisting or encouraging another employee in exercising rights to that employee.