In Massachusetts, a workplace discrimination or harassment claim under G.L. c. 151B must be filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) within 300 days of the discriminatory act. In this case, the Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment against an employee on his sexual harassment claim because it was added to his MCAD complaint too late, and it upheld a jury verdict for the employer on his retaliation claim. (His age claim was also ruled late, but he did not appeal that ruling.) It is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
The employee worked as a corrections officer for the sheriff’s department starting in 1996. He claimed a supervisor sexually harassed him from 2005 until 2011, and that she told him she did not want him promoted. He complained inside the department and, on July 18, 2012, filed an MCAD complaint for retaliation. Days later he sent the MCAD information about sexual harassment, but it was not a formal amendment, and he did not formally add sexual harassment and age claims until January 2014. His deadline for the harassment claim had been August 6, 2012. After an approved leave, the department administratively terminated him in July 2013 when he did not return to work.
What the court decided
In Francis v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, No. 24-P-1366 (Mass. App. Ct. March 9, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision), the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment and the order denying a new trial.
The harassment claim was late. G.L. c. 151B, § 5 requires an MCAD complaint within 300 days after the alleged act of discrimination. On appeal, the employee argued for the first time that a September 2012 memorandum to the MCAD was a timely filing. The court said the argument was waived. At summary judgment he had answered the employer’s statement of facts with the single word “denied,” with no citation to that memorandum. Under Superior Court Rule 9A, a denial without a specific record reference counts as an admission. Poon v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 74 Mass. App. Ct. 185, 193 n.7 (2009).
No equitable tolling. Equitable tolling applies only when a person did not have, and could not have gotten with due diligence, the information needed to sue. Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 425 Mass. 615 (1997). The employee had described his failure to amend as a lapse of judgment, not a lack of information. His new argument that the MCAD misled him was raised for the first time on appeal, so the court did not consider it.
The excluded evidence. At the retaliation trial, the employee tried to show that the department had used the same administrative termination policy against another employee who complained of harassment. The trial judge found that evidence of marginal relevance at most, and likely to confuse the jury and add a large amount of new testimony. The Appeals Court added that it would have required a trial within a trial, since the supervisor had no involvement with the other employee. Evidence rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Zucco v. Kane, 439 Mass. 503, 507 (2003). The court found none.
What this means for you
The harassment claim was lost on deadlines and procedure, not on its facts. That is the lesson.
The 300-day clock starts when the discriminatory act happens, not when you decide to act. Filing an MCAD complaint about one thing, such as retaliation, may not cover other claims, such as sexual harassment or age discrimination. Each claim should be in the charge, or properly added by amendment, on time. Sending the agency an informal letter or extra information may not be enough.
Workplace pressure, stress, and fear of making things worse are real. But in this case, a lapse of judgment was not a reason to extend the deadline. Tolling is narrow. It generally helps only when you could not have known the facts you needed.
Procedure in court matters just as much. If the other side files for summary judgment, your response must point to the exact documents in the record that prove your side. A bare “denied” can be treated as an admission. And arguments you do not make to the trial judge usually cannot be made later on appeal.
Finally, evidence that another worker was treated the same way can help, but a judge may keep it out if it would turn into a side trial, especially if different decision makers were involved.
What to do now
- Write down the date of each act of harassment or discrimination, and count 300 days from the most recent one.
- File with the MCAD before the deadline, and list every type of claim: harassment, age, retaliation, and any others.
- If you learn of new claims later, file a formal amendment promptly and get written confirmation from the MCAD.
- Keep copies of everything you send to the agency and every response.
- Talk to an employment lawyer early, before deadlines pass and before any court filings.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Deadlines for discrimination and employment claims can be short.
