Section 75B. (1) Any employee who has sustained a work-related injury and is capable of performing the essential functions of a particular job, or who would be capable of performing the essential functions of such job with reasonable accommodations, shall be deemed to be a qualified handicapped person under the provisions of chapter one hundred and fifty-one B.
(2) No employer or duly authorized agent of an employer shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has exercised a right afforded by this chapter, or who has testified or in any manner cooperated with an inquiry or proceeding pursuant to this chapter, unless the employee knowingly participated in a fraudulent proceeding. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this section may initiate proceedings in the superior court department of the trial court for the county in which the alleged violation occurred. An employer found to have violated this paragraph shall be exclusively liable to pay to the employee lost wages, shall grant the employee suitable employment, and shall reimburse such reasonable attorney fees incurred in the protection of rights granted as shall be determined by the court. The court may grant whatever equitable relief it deems necessary to protect rights granted by this section.
(3) In the event that any right set forth in this section is inconsistent with an applicable collective bargaining agreement, such agreement shall prevail. An employee may not otherwise waive rights granted by this section.
(4) Upon a determination by the commissioner that a request for data maintained by the department is intended to be used in such a manner as to violate the purposes of this section, the commissioner may find that the disclosure of such data constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to chapter four and deny said request. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an insurer's right to obtain any information held by the department regarding any employee who has filed a claim against such insurer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 928 N.E.2d 327 (Mass. 2010).
Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 928 N.E.2d 327 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 9דHe contends also that his employer contravened provisions of the workers’ compensation act by discriminating against him because of his disability, in violation of G. L. c. 152, § 75B. Following the dismissal of his complaint by the Massachusetts Commission Against…”
Fant v. New England Power Serv. Co., 239 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 4ד” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75B(2). Although Fant’s complaint also fails to invoke specifically Chapter 152, § 75B, he alleges that he “suffered a work related injury and was seperated [sic] from his employment” based upon his “disabilities.”
Benoit v. Technical Mfg. Corp., 331 F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 2003). “§ 12102 (“ADA”) and Chapter 151B; (4) TMC retaliated against him in violation of the ADA; and (5) TMC retaliated against him in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75B, the Commonwealth’s workers’ compensation act (“Workers’ Compensation Act”).”
Dartt v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 691 N.E.2d 526 (Mass. 1998). · cites it 2דThe workers’ compensation act, G. L. c. 152, § 75B (1), provides that any employee “who has sustained a work-related injury and is capable of performing the essential functions of a particular job .”
Barton v. Clancy, 632 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2011). “In light of this conclusion, we need not address Barton’s alternative argument that he qualifies as a handicapped person by virtue of his work-related back injury under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75B, a section of the Massachusetts workers' compensation law.”
Canfield v. Con-way Freight, Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Mass. 2008). · cites it 5דProcedural History On September 22, 2006, Canfield filed his complaint in state court alleging against both defendants: 1) violation of M.G.L. c. 152, § 75B (“the Workers’ Compensation Act”) which prohibits, among other things, an employer from discriminating against an employee…”
Ourfalian v. Aro Mfg. Co., 577 N.E.2d 6 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2ד5 It is not fatal to the complaint that G. L. c. 152, § 75B, was not specifically pleaded.”
Russell v. Cooley Dickinson Hosp., Inc., 772 N.E.2d 1054 (Mass. 2002). “151B, § 1 (16), and G. L. c. 152, § 75B. A “qualified handicapped person” is defined under G.”
Magerer v. John Sexton & Co., 727 F. Supp. 744 (D. Mass. 1990). · cites it 10דThe complaint stated four separate state law claims: breach of employment contract, violation of public policy, violation of Mass. Gen.L. ch. 152, § 75B, and intentional interference with advantageous contract relations.”
Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., 460 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2006). “Impact of Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation Law on Chapter 151, § 4 Notwithstanding the many similarities between Chapter 151B, § 4 and the ADA, there is a gloss which Massachusetts’ workers’ compensation law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75B(1), arguably places on the…”
Mercado v. Manny's T.V. & Appliance, Inc., 928 N.E.2d 979 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3ד151B; (2) retaliatory termination based on the filing of a worker’s compensation claim in violation of G. L. c. 152, § 75B(2); and (3) violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).”
Devlin v. WSi Corp., 833 F. Supp. 69 (D. Mass. 1993). · cites it 4דThe Motion to Amend— Retaliatory Discharge On June 9, 1993, Devlin moved to amend his complaint for the fifth time to add a count for retaliatory discharge against all defendants pursuant to Mass.Gen.L. ch. 152, § 75B. The individual and corporate defendants oppose the motion on…”
Mulloy v. Acushnet Co., 460 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2006). “Impact of Massachusetts’ Workers’ Compensation Law on Chapter 151, § 4 Notwithstanding the many similarities between Chapter 151B, § 4 and the ADA, there is a gloss which Massachusetts’ workers’ compensation law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75B(1), arguably places on the…”
Canfield v. Con-way Freight, Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Mass. 2008). “Procedural History On September 22, 2006, Canfield filed his complaint in state court alleging against both defendants: 1) violation of M.G.L. c. 152, § 75B (“the Workers’ Compensation Act”) which prohibits, among other things, an employer from discriminating against an employee…”
Fant v. New England Power Serv. Co., 239 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001). “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75B(2). Although Fant’s complaint also fails to invoke specifically Chapter 152, § 75B, he alleges that he “suffered a work related injury and was seperated [sic] from his employment” based upon his “disabilities.”
Mercado v. Manny's T.V. & Appliance, Inc., 928 N.E.2d 979 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “151B; (2) retaliatory termination based on the filing of a worker’s compensation claim in violation of G. L. c. 152, § 75B(2); and (3) violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).”
Canfield v. Con-way Freight, Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Mass. 2008). “Procedural History On September 22, 2006, Canfield filed his complaint in state court alleging against both defendants: 1) violation of M.G.L. c. 152, § 75B (“the Workers’ Compensation Act”) which prohibits, among other things, an employer from discriminating against an employee…”
Ourfalian v. Aro Mfg. Co., 577 N.E.2d 6 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). “5 It is not fatal to the complaint that G. L. c. 152, § 75B, was not specifically pleaded.”
Fant v. New England Power Serv. Co., 239 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001). “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 75B(2). Although Fant’s complaint also fails to invoke specifically Chapter 152, § 75B, he alleges that he “suffered a work related injury and was seperated [sic] from his employment” based upon his “disabilities.”
Magerer v. John Sexton & Co., 727 F. Supp. 744 (D. Mass. 1990). “The complaint stated four separate state law claims: breach of employment contract, violation of public policy, violation of Mass. Gen.L. ch. 152, § 75B, and intentional interference with advantageous contract relations.”
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.