Employment – Chapter 151B – Employer status

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was awarded summary judgment on a plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination under G.L.c. 151B, §4, that judgment should be affirmed because the plaintiff admits that he was not employed by the defendant.

“This case illustrates the importance of suing the correct party and the dangers of ignoring federal court scheduling orders. Jorge Baez sued BayMark Detoxification Services, Inc., alleging BayMark Detox. was his former employer and asserting claims of disability discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, §4. Baez was informed numerous times by the defendant he sued that he had sued the wrong party. Nonetheless, Baez made no timely attempt to seek to amend his complaint to assert his claims against the correct former employer. It was not until BayMark Detox. moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was not at any time Baez’s employer that Baez argued briefly in his opposition that he should be allowed to amend his complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to BayMark Detox., denied Baez’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from that judgment, and ordered Baez to pay BayMark Detox.’s costs. …

“Baez began working for Community Health Care, Inc. d/b/a Health Care Resource Centers (‘CHC’) in August of 1997 as a counselor at its facility in Chicopee, Massachusetts. In 2017, BayMark Health Services, Inc. (‘BHS’) acquired CHC. …

“… BayMark Detox., like CHC, is a subsidiary of BHS and is registered to do business in Massachusetts, but BayMark Detox. and CHC have no connection to one another. …

“The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to BayMark Detox. The district court had no reason to get into the sufficiency of Baez’s evidence of discrimination because Baez’s Chapter 151B claim failed for a more fundamental reason: that he did not name his employer as the defendant as Massachusetts law requires. …

“… It is undisputed that BayMark Detox., as a subsidiary of BHS separate and apart from CHC, exercised no control over Baez. Baez admits that he was not employed by BayMark Detox. and does not contest that ‘[his] tax records indicate he was employed by CHC.’ It is similarly undisputed that ‘[BayMark Detox.] is an additional, distinct subsidiary of [BHS] and does not maintain any active operation in Massachusetts,’ and that BayMark Detox. does not have ‘any relationship employment-based or otherwise, to CHC or Baez.’ BayMark Detox. is ‘a completely separate and essentially unrelated company that operates in different service lines that provide different types of treatment.’ In light of these undisputed facts as to the lack of any relationship between Baez and BayMark Detox., it is clear that Baez’s ‘complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.’ …”

Baez v. BayMark Detoxification Services, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-261-24) (14 pages) (Lynch, J.) Appealed from a decision by Mastroianni, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Tani E. Sapirstein and Sapirstein & Sapirstein on brief for the plaintiff-appellant; Richard S. Loftus, Samuel R. Gates and Hirsch Roberts Weinstein, LLP on brief for the defendant-appellee (Docket Nos. 24-1171 and 24-1490) (Dec. 12, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.