Employment – Exhaustion requirement – MCAD

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has brought an action alleging discrimination under Title VII, the complaint must be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file a claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination within the 300-day statute of limitations period.

“Here, the parties disagree about whether Harvey filed the MCAD complaint within the 300-day statute of limitations which began to run on October 1, 2020, the day she resigned, and would have expired on July 28, 2021. …

“Harvey does not dispute that her initial complaint was unverified, but she attributes this to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented her from going to the MCAD office and signing the complaint. … Once she had cured the verification in response to the MCAD’s request made on May 17, 2021, the commission ‘accept[ed] the complaint for being timely filed as of February 11, 2021.’ … Harvey asserts that because the MCAD adopted February 11, 2021 as the effective filing date, the Court should follow suit. … This Court disagrees.  …

“Here, by adopting the February 11, 2021 submission as the operative charge ‘in the interest of fairness and justice,’ the MCAD seemingly concedes that the September 10, 2021 filing of the verified complaint was untimely. This Court, however, finds no reason to invoke equitable tolling given the circumstances of the case. …

“… Beyond stating that she was unable to visit the MCAD office in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Harvey remains silent on what actions, if any, she took after May 17, 2021, when the MCAD followed up on her initial submission, and why she did not schedule a remote intake interview or verify the complaint prior to July 29, 2021. … As such, this Court, although sympathetic to Harvey’s plight, cannot find exceptional circumstances justifying equitable tolling. … While an amendment to the February 2021 complaint could have cured the defect in Harvey’s submission, based on the facts before it, the Court cannot conclude that either she or the MCAD ever amended the unverified complaint. Accordingly, the Court finds that Harvey’s filing of the MCAD complaint was untimely.”

Harvey v. Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-034-25) (12 pages) (Burroughs, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-cv-10652-ADB) (Jan. 28, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.