Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 42D (2026)

Suspension of district employees

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 42D. The superintendent may suspend any employee of the school district subject to the provisions of this section. The principal of a school may suspend any teacher or other employee assigned to the school subject to the provisions of this section. Any employee shall have seven days written notice of the intent to suspend and the grounds upon which the suspension is to be imposed; provided, however, that the superintendent may, for good cause, require the immediate suspension of any employee, in which case the employee shall receive written notice of the immediate suspension and the cause therefor at the time the suspension is imposed. The employee shall be entitled (i) to review the decision to suspend with the superintendent or principal if said decision to suspend was made by the principal; (ii) to be represented by counsel in such meetings; (iii) to provide information pertinent to the decision and to the employee's status.

No teacher or other employee shall be suspended for a period exceeding one month, except with the consent of the teacher or other employee, and no teacher or other employee shall receive compensation for any period of lawful suspension.

No teacher shall be interrogated prior to any notice given to him relative to the suspension unless the teacher or other employee is notified of his right to be represented by counsel during any such investigation. A suspended teacher or other employee may seek review of the suspension by following the arbitration procedures set forth in section forty-two. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting any provision of a collective bargaining agreement with respect to suspension of teachers or other employees.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Perryman v. Sch. Comm. of Boston, 458 N.E.2d 748 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Perryman v. Sch. Comm. of Boston, 458 N.E.2d 748 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). · cites it 3× “After the school committee’s vote on October 5, 1982, to suspend Robert Perryman and Carolyn Perryman (the teachers) under G. L. c. 268A, § 25, the teachers brought an action pursuant to G.”

Martin v. Sch. Comm., 472 N.E.2d 231 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 9× “He sought declaratory relief with respect to both suspensions, alleging that the defendants'had imposed the suspensions in violation of G. L. c. 71, § 42D, and that he had been deprived of due process.”

Thomas Conward v. The Cambridge Sch. Comm., 171 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1999). “Whatever force these plaints otherwise might have had was dissipated when, before ending his employment, the defendants extended to him an additional invitation to furnish his version of relevant events at a pre-termination hearing, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 42D, and the…”

Dupree v. Sch. Comm. of Boston, 446 N.E.2d 1099 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). · cites it 3× “30, § 59, see note 4, supra, indicates that the remedy in G.L.c. 71, § 42D, does not preclude the application of G.”

Wood v. Goodman, 381 F. Supp. 413 (D. Mass. 1974). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and a declaration that M.G.L. c. 71, § 42D, particularly the second paragraph thereof, 1 and actions of the defendants *415 pursuant thereto are unconstitutional.”

Superintendent-Dir. of Assabet Valley Reg'l Vocational Sch. Dist. v. Speicher, 15 N.E.3d 735 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 5× “The librarian had been suspended for “conduct unbecoming” the librarian, pursuant to G. L. c. 71, § 42D. The arbitrator applied a just cause standard of review and overturned the sus *634 pension on the ground that the school district failed to meet its burden of proof.”

Wakefield Teachers Ass'n v. Sch. Comm., 731 N.E.2d 63 (Mass. 2000). “” His report describes his decision to impose on the teacher a suspension without pay for four weeks, pursuant to G. L. c. 71, § 42D. 8 The teacher *795 served the four-week suspension before returning to work.”

Sch. Comm. of Lexington v. Zagaeski, 12 N.E.3d 384 (Mass. 2014). “See G. L. c. 71, § 42D. In sum, I believe that it is the proper function of the arbitrator to find and weigh the facts, and subsequently either to reverse or to uphold a school district’s dismissal decision, but not to reduce the punishment imposed by the school.”

Serrazina v. Springfield Pub. Schs., 954 N.E.2d 1147 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “The school did not invoke the statute generally applicable to employee *619 suspensions, G. L. c. 71, § 42D, presumably because that statute limits the period of involuntary suspension to one month.”

Doherty v. Sch. Comm., 384 N.E.2d 228 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “There has been no occasion to consider whether a principal is also a "teacher” for purposes of G. L. c. 71, § 42D. The argument is dangerous, because it can be demonstrated without too much strain that the defendant was also effectively "dismissed” from his position as acting…”

Dupree v. Sch. Comm., 446 N.E.2d 1099 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983). · cites it 3× “30, § 59, see note 4, supra, indicates that the remedy in G. L. c. 71, § 42D, does not preclude the application of G.”

Wakefield Teachers Ass'n v. Sch. Comm., 716 N.E.2d 121 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999). “71, § 42, and the superintendent may suspend any school employee, G. L. c. 71, § 42D. If the superintendent has failed properly to deal with a disciplinary problem with a teacher, it is the superintendent who must answer to the public as well as to the school committee who…”

Show all 14 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.