Yes. In April 2024 the Appeals Court upheld a ruling of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) that a dock workers’ union discriminated against a woman when it passed her over for forklift jobs in favor of men, some of whom lacked a required safety certificate. The court also held that federal labor law did not block the state discrimination case. This is a published decision of the Appeals Court and is binding statewide.
What happened
At the Port of New Bedford, the union ran the daily hiring process, called a “shape up,” that decided who worked on the docks. Women had traditionally been limited to lower-level jobs, and the union had no female members as of 2009. The worker, who started at the terminal in 2004, held the forklift safety certificate the job required and trained on forklifts in her spare time. Union officials passed her over for forklift work five times, once choosing two men who did not have the required certificate. She filed an MCAD complaint in 2009. A hearing officer found sex discrimination, awarded her $50,000 for emotional distress, imposed the maximum $10,000 civil penalty, and ordered the union to admit her as a member retroactive to October 1, 2009, with the benefits that would have come with membership. The full commission and a Superior Court judge agreed.
What the court decided
In International Longshoremen Association, Local 1413-1465 v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 28 (2024), the Appeals Court affirmed.
The discrimination finding stood. G.L. c. 151B, § 4, makes it unlawful for a labor organization to discriminate because of sex against its members or against people who work for an employer. The court reviewed the MCAD decision under G.L. c. 30A, § 14, giving deference to the hearing officer as fact finder. Most of the union’s arguments attacked credibility findings, which are for the hearing officer to make. Applying the three-stage method of proof described in Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 432 Mass. 107 (2000), the court found the evidence sufficient: the worker was qualified, the union treated her differently from men who lacked a mandatory qualification, and the union gave no credible explanation. The court said nothing more was required.
The remedies stood. Emotional distress awards must be fair, reasonable and proportionate to the distress suffered. Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 549 (2004). The hearing officer credited the worker’s testimony that she felt hurt, upset and like a second-class citizen, and that she still felt upset years later. The maximum civil penalty was supported because, shortly after the National Labor Relations Board filed a discrimination complaint against the union, the union raised its membership work requirement from 300 total hours to 400 hours in a single fiscal year, then admitted men who had not met it. The membership order also stood. The worker had fewer hours than the rule required, but the hearing officer found that shortfall was a direct result of the union’s discrimination.
Federal labor law did not block the claim. The union raised federal preemption late. Its arguments under two federal statutes were waived. Its argument under the National Labor Relations Act could be raised at any time, but it failed. The Supreme Judicial Court held long ago that state antidiscrimination statutes are not preempted by federal labor law. Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 375 Mass. 160 (1978). The Appeals Court held that ruling still binds it.
What this means for you
Massachusetts discrimination law reaches unions, not only employers. If a union controls who gets work, it cannot steer the better jobs to men. If you are qualified and you watch less qualified people get picked ahead of you, that pattern can prove discrimination even without an open statement of bias.
Remedies can go beyond money. Here the MCAD ordered union membership with benefits, and the court upheld that order even though the worker had not met the hour requirement, because the union’s own conduct kept her hours low.
Written statements matter. A union official’s written response to the MCAD, saying the women in the traditional jobs “knew their place,” became evidence against the union.
Expect a long road. The MCAD complaint was filed in 2009, and the appeal was decided in 2024.
What to do now
- Keep a log of each time you sought work and who was picked instead, with dates.
- Save copies of your licenses, certificates and training records.
- Write down any comments about sex or other protected traits, who said them and who heard them.
- Do not wait to file with the MCAD. The filing deadline is short.
- Talk to a lawyer before you put anything in writing to your union or employer about the dispute.
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.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
