Posts tagged "AliMed"

Flagg v. AliMed, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-137-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030;     SJC‑11182   MARC FLAGG  vs.  ALIMED, INC.     Norfolk.     January 8, 2013.  ‑  July 19, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Anti‑Discrimination Law, Employee, Employment, Handicap, Association, Termination of employment.  Employment, Discrimination, Termination.  Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss.  Statute, Construction.  Libel and Slander.  Actionable Tort.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 8, 2010.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Patrick F. Brady, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Marc S. Alpert for the plaintiff. James J. Rooney for the defendant. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: John Pagliaro & Martin J. Newhouse for New England Legal Foundation & another. J. Lynn Milinazzo-Gaudet for Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Rebecca G. Pontikes, Jonathan J. Margolis, & Beth R. Myers for National Employment Lawyers Association, Massachusetts Chapter, & others. Matthew Segal, Sarah Wunsch, Anne Josephson, & Richard S. Loftus for The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts & others. Janet Steckel Lundberg for Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts.   Joshua D. Jacobson & Gabrielle Viator, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth.     BOTSFORD, J.  The Commonwealth’s antidiscrimination statute, G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), bars employment discrimination on the basis of handicap.  This case presents the question whether the statute bars an employer from discriminating against its employee based on the handicap of a person with whom the employee associates.  We answer that in the circumstances of this case, it does.[1] Background.  The plaintiff, Marc Flagg, appeals from the dismissal of his second amended complaint (complaint)[2] against his former employer, the defendant, AliMed, Inc. (AliMed).  The complaint contained claims of defamation and of employment discrimination in violation of G. L. c. 151B (c. 151B).[3]       We recite the pertinent facts alleged in the complaint.  By February, 2008, the plaintiff had worked for AliMed for approximately eighteen years, and had received good job performance reviews.  As an employee, the plaintiff received a salary and benefits, including family medical insurance, and an implied term of his employment was that AliMed would not terminate him because a family member developed a serious medical condition that involved considerable medical expense.  On December 7, 2007, the plaintiff’s wife underwent surgery for removal of a […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,