Employment – Emotional distress – Statutory bar

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has asserted a variety of claims stemming from alleged workplace age discrimination, the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss should be denied as to the plaintiff’s contract claims but allowed as to a count alleging infliction of emotional distress, which is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act.

“Plaintiff Michael Lawless filed a Second Amended Complaint against the Town of Groveland and Groveland Fire Department Chief Robert Valentine. …

“The defendants’ motion is granted as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress (‘IIED’) claim because it is statutorily barred. Defendants argue that the exclusivity provision of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (‘WCA’), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, §24, bars this claim. …

“Lawless unsuccessfully argues that the WCA bar does not apply because Valentine was acting outside the scope of his employment when he inflicted emotional harm upon him. While some courts have held that IIED claims grounded in sexual harassment can go forward because that harassment can never further the interests of the employer, this case is distinguishable because the underlying issue relates to workplace discrimination that does not rely on claims of sexual harassment. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this claim is granted. …

“The motion to dismiss the misrepresentation claim is granted. …

“Even if Lawless properly pled a claim for negligent misrepresentation, the allegations in the complaint do not give rise to an actionable claim under Massachusetts law. … Lawless fails to allege facts that permit an inference that he relied on Valentine’s statements to his detriment. He has not shown how relying on any specific statement caused him harm. Accordingly, the intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims should be dismissed. …

“The defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Counts Nine and Ten because Lawless’s allegations are sufficient at this stage in the litigation. …

“In conclusion, the defendants’ (dkt. no. 18) Partial Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Counts Four, Five, and Six and denied as to Counts Nine and Ten.”

Lawless v. Town of Groveland, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-384-25) (5 pages) (O’Toole, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-12605-GAO) (July 16, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.