A recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision highlights a form of discrimination that employers may not always remember – associational discrimination. Associational discrimination is workplace discrimination against one for his relationship with another, and is expressly recognized in the Americans with Disabilities Act. In this case, the court recognized such a claim under a counterpart state law. In Flagg v. Alimed, Inc., a long-time employee’s wife had surgery for a brain tumor and the employee needed extra time to care for his children. The employee's manager told him "to take the time needed" and permitted the employee to leave for short periods without punching out. However, the employer discovered the employee’s practice of failing to punch out and terminated him.
The employee filed suit under the Massachusetts' antidiscrimination statute, citing the true reason for his termination as the employer's aversion to paying substantial medical expenses resulting from his wife’s disability. He thus claimed he was fired for his association with his handicapped wife. However, the trial court found that "the state statute did not recognize associational discrimination" and dismissed the suit. The Massachusetts Supreme Court analyzed the statute's language to determine its meaning and purpose. It focused specifically on the definition of "handicap" as also "being regarded as having [a mental or physical] impairment." This language "signal[ed] [to the court] that [the law] was intended ‘to prevent employer’s animus against disability from adversely affecting not just those employees with actual handicaps but essentially all members of its workforce, because every employee theoretically has the potential for being regarded by the employer as having an impairment.’” The court also found it persuasive that federal antidiscrimination statutes have been interpreted to cover associational discrimination. Ultimately, the court reversed the lower court's ruling and held that associational discrimination based on handicap was prohibited under the state statute. Employers need to be vigilant about the liabilities associated with an employee’s family members, as it is less intuitive to remember that employees with an ill family member are in fact in a “protected class” such that terminations need to be approached carefully. About the Author: Lauren Box is a summer associate in Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Indianapolis, Ind. office. She attends the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.RELATED ARTICLES
California's Law Barring Arbitration Won't Go Into Effect January 1
December 31, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law
Ninth Circuit Punts On Whether Obesity Is A Disability Under the ADA
August 23, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Extreme Obesity Not Necessarily a Disability Under ADA, Says Seventh Circuit
June 20, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Ohio House Considers Bill to Protect Businesses from Architectural Barrier Lawsuits
November 14, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
Lessons Learned: Job Descriptions Do Matter
May 1, 2017 | Employment Discrimination, Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
California's Law Barring Arbitration Won't Go Into Effect January 1
December 31, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law
Ninth Circuit Punts On Whether Obesity Is A Disability Under the ADA
August 23, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Extreme Obesity Not Necessarily a Disability Under ADA, Says Seventh Circuit
June 20, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Ohio House Considers Bill to Protect Businesses from Architectural Barrier Lawsuits
November 14, 2017 | Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
Lessons Learned: Job Descriptions Do Matter
May 1, 2017 | Employment Discrimination, Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law
Flex-Time and Telecommuting Requests: Potential Traps for the Unwary Employer
June 14, 2016 | Employee Health Issues, Currents - Employment Law
What Employers must know about the Americans with Disabilities Act
June 8, 2016 | EEOC, Currents - Employment Law
Employee Who Threatened to Shoot His Colleagues with a Shotgun Not a “Qualified Individual” For the Purposes of Oregon’s Disability Statute, Says Ninth Circuit
October 12, 2015 | Employee Health Issues, Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
More Hope for Employers Who Have Ever Felt Bullied by the EEOC
July 1, 2015 | EEOC, Currents - Employment Law
Getting What You Don’t Ask For – The Perils Of ADA Accommodation By Inference
May 27, 2015 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
The Interactive Process Under the ADA – Are you engaging in it?
August 25, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
It Depends: The Top 3 Inherently Gray Areas of Employment Law
August 15, 2014 | Letter of the Law, Currents - Employment Law
When Numbers Count
December 19, 2012 | Fair Labor Standards Act, Currents - Employment Law
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center