Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75A (2026)

Preferences for hiring

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 75A. Any person who has lost a job as a result of an injury compensable under this chapter shall be given preference in hiring by the employer for whom he worked at the time of compensable injury over any persons not at the time of application for reemployment employed by such employer; provided, however, that a suitable job is available. Actions may be filed under this section with the superior court department of the trial court for the county in which the alleged violation occurred. An employer found to have violated this section shall be exclusively liable to pay to the employee lost wages, shall grant the employee a suitable job, and shall reimburse such reasonable attorney fees incurred in the protection of rights granted by this section as shall be determined by the court.

In the event that any right set forth in this section is inconsistent with an applicable collective bargaining agreement or chapter thirty-one, the collective bargaining agreement or said chapter thirty-one shall prevail.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Russell v. Cooley Dickinson Hosp., Inc., 772 N.E.2d 1054 (Mass. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Russell v. Cooley Dickinson Hosp., Inc., 772 N.E.2d 1054 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 3× “Hiring preference under G. L. c. 152, § 75A. The plaintiff argues that the hospital failed to give her the hiring preference to which she was entitled under G.”

Ourfalian v. Aro Mfg. Co., 577 N.E.2d 6 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 3× “149, § 24A (prohibiting dismissal based on age), and G. L. c. 152, § 75A (requiring rehiring preference to a workers’ compensation claimant).”

Fant v. New England Power Serv. Co., 239 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001). “" Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75A. 10 . Because we find that Fant’s state law claim is preempted by federal law, and because Fant has not pursued a § 301 claim, we need not determine whether a § 301 fair representation claim against the union would be timely under the applicable…”

Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 928 N.E.2d 327 (Mass. 2010). “15IB (count I); failure to give preference in hiring under the terms of the workers’ compensation act, G. L. c. 152, § 75A (count II); unlawful discrimination because of the filing of the workers’ compensation claim, G.”

Joseph Lydon v. Boston Sand & Gravel Co., 175 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1999). “Further, the arbitrator agreed substantively with the parties’ exchange of letters in finding that the CBA did not at all address the rights of workers who received lump sump settlements, so that it could not be considered inconsistent with the state statute.”

Bishop v. Bell Atl. Corp., 81 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “1999) (construing Mass. Gen.L. ch. 152, § 75A & 75B); Martin v.”

Patterson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 262 F. Supp. 2d 453 (D.N.J. 2003). “…with an applicable collective bargaining agreement ... the collective bargaining agreement ... shall prevail.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, §§ 75A, 75B. The court held that plaintiffs discrimination claim under sections 75A and 75B(2) of the Massachusetts workers’…”

Federici v. Mansfield Credit Union, 506 N.E.2d 115 (Mass. 1987). “5 A second statute, G. L. c. 152, § 75A, inserted by St. 1985, c.”

Troconis v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D. Mass. 2001). “93, §§ 102, 103 (the State Equal Rights Act); Count III: violation of M.G.L. c. 152, §§ 75A, 75B (discrimination and retaliation under the Workers’ Compensation Law); Count IV: intentional interference with advantageous contractual relations; and Count V: loss of consortium.”

Davenport v. Natgun Corp., 941 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D. Mass. 2013). “Plaintiff brings seven claims: Counts I and II allege violations of the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act, M.G.L. c. 152, §§ 75A and 75B (“MWCA”); Counts III and IV allege handicap discrimination under the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Statute, M.”

Morgan v. Colonial Gas Co., 772 F. Supp. 693 (D. Mass. 1991). “G.L. c. 152 § 75A by refusing to rehire Mr.”

Susan Ledoux v. Bristol Cmty. Coll.. (Mass. App. Ct. 2026). · cites it 5× “4 The plaintiff brought this action against BCC alleging that it had violated the hiring preference required by the workers' compensation act, G. L. c. 152, § 75A, and had retaliated against her in violation of G.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.