Yes, and an early anti-SLAPP motion may not end the case. The Appeals Court held that private reports of sexual harassment to coworkers and to a private workplace investigator were not “petitioning” the government, so the person who reported and the employer could not use the anti-SLAPP statute to throw out the accused scientist’s lawsuit. This is a published decision of the Appeals Court and binding statewide, but one part of it, about suing an individual harasser in the academic setting, was later reversed by the Supreme Judicial Court in 2026. The SJC did not review the rest.
What happened
A laboratory director at a research institute had a sexual relationship with a scientist he had taught in her graduate program, who later became a fellow at the institute. After the relationship ended, she told colleagues, the institute’s director, and outside investigators hired by the institute that he had sexually harassed her. The investigators found that he had committed sexual harassment, and he resigned. The institute then told its community, affiliated institutions and scientific journals that he had violated its harassment policy. He sued the fellow, the institute and its director for defamation and other claims, and she filed counterclaims, including one for sexual harassment under G.L. c. 214, § 1C.
What the court decided
In Sabatini v. Knouse, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 174 (2025), the court ruled on four issues.
Anti-SLAPP. The anti-SLAPP statute, G.L. c. 231, § 59H, lets a party ask for early dismissal of claims based on its right to petition the government. Under Bristol Asphalt, Co. v. Rochester Bituminous Prods., Inc., 493 Mass. 539 (2024), the moving party must show the claim has no substantial basis other than its petitioning. The court held that the fellow’s reports were made in private, to colleagues and to private investigators, when no government agency was involved. The institute’s statements were also private, to people with an interest in the news. Because the claims rested on conduct other than petitioning, all of the special motions to dismiss should have been denied.
Defamation. The court still upheld dismissal of the defamation and interference claims against the institute and its director. A statement is conditionally privileged when the speaker and listener share a common interest and the statement is reasonably meant to protect it. Downey v. Chutehall Constr. Co., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 660 (2014). The institute, its community, affiliated institutions and journals all shared an interest in whether he could run a laboratory free of harassment. His own complaint showed the institute had reason to believe the finding.
Retaliation. A retaliation claim under G.L. c. 151B requires protected activity, an adverse action, and a causal link. Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697 (2011). His text asking her to “please stop” was too general to count as a complaint about harassment. In context, it was a request for space after a personal relationship.
The fellow’s counterclaim. The Appeals Court held that a claim under G.L. c. 214, § 1C, for harassment in the academic setting had to be brought against the school, not an individual. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed in Sabatini v. Knouse, No. SJC-13781 (Mass. May 19, 2026). It held that § 1C lets a person sue the individual who harassed them in the academic context, reversed the dismissal of that counterclaim, and sent it back to the trial court without deciding his other arguments for dismissal.
What this means for you
If you report harassment to coworkers, a supervisor or an investigator your employer hires, and the person you named sues you, the anti-SLAPP statute may not get you out early. Under this decision, private workplace reports are not petitioning unless there is real evidence they were aimed at a government body. A report to a government agency, such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, stands on different footing.
That does not mean the lawsuit will succeed. It means your defenses are decided in the ordinary course of the case, not on a quick special motion.
If you were the one accused, the case shows how hard it is to sue an employer for sharing an investigation finding with people who have a stake in it. Unless you can show recklessness, malice or excessive publication, the privilege usually holds.
If you believe you were retaliated against for objecting to harassment, your objection needs to read as a complaint about harassment. A vague request to be left alone may not be enough.
And after the 2026 decision, a student or trainee harassed by an instructor may be able to sue that person directly, not only the school.
What to do now
- If you report harassment, put it in writing and describe the conduct clearly as harassment.
- Keep copies of your reports, messages and any investigation findings.
- Consider whether a filing with the MCAD is required or helpful, and watch the deadline.
- If you are sued over a report, get legal advice quickly. Early motions have short timelines.
- Avoid repeating accusations to people who have no need to know.
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.
