Boston Lawyer Blog

Supreme Judicial Court confirms individuals may be sued for sexual harassment in education settings under state statute

Published on: May 21, 2026 | by Niamh Gibbons

In a decision issued this week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that victims of sexual harassment in academic settings may sue individual harassers directly under G.L. c. 214, § 1C—the state’s sexual harassment statute. The ruling reverses a lower court decision that had dismissed a sexual harassment claim filed by Dr. Kristin Knouse against her former instructor, dissertation committee member, and fellowship director, Dr. David Sabatini. The new ruling clarifies that students and trainees have a statutory right to be free from sexual harassment during their education and may sue individual teachers, faculty, staff, or other students to enforce that right. Naomi Shatz and I filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Jane Doe Inc., the Victim Rights Law Center, the Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association, urging the SJC to find that the statute allows for suits against individuals.

Background

The underlying dispute arose between Sabatini, a prominent biologist formerly at the Whitehead Institute and MIT, and Knouse, a former graduate student at MIT and later a Whitehead Fellow. Knouse alleged in internal reports to Whitehead that Sabatini engaged in sexualized comments while he was her instructor and a member of her dissertation committee, that they later had a sexual relationship while he had power over her career, and that Sabatini’s inappropriate conduct continued even after the relationship ended. An internal survey and independent investigation found that engaging in sexual discussions was a requirement for success in Sabatini’s lab and that the lab was dominated by a “culture of fear and retaliation.” When the independent investigation found violations of Whitehead’s sexual harassment policy, Sabatini separated from both Whitehead and MIT.

First Circuit Evaluates PIPs As Adverse Employment Actions

Published on: May 1, 2026 | by Jackson Estrin

To establish a viable claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, an employee must show, among other things, that they suffered an “adverse employment action.” While termination is a quintessential adverse action, less serious actions are also legally sufficient. In a recent decision in Walsh v. HNTB Corp., the First Circuit provided guidance as to when a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) may constitute an adverse employment action.

Background

In Walsh, the plaintiff, Joanne Walsh, worked as an information technology employee for HNTB Corporation in its Boston office for over 25 years. In 2019, when she was approximately 54 years old, she and another older employee in the same job were placed on nearly identical PIPs. During the course of the PIP, Walsh’s team leader told her that she could “be replaced with younger, cheaper people.” Walsh successfully completed the PIP but then felt that her working conditions deteriorated and she was treated differently than younger employees in the same job. Ten months after completing the PIP, Ms. Walsh and the other older employee who had been placed on the same PIP resigned. Ms. Walsh subsequently sued HNTB under both state and federal law, alleging that it had discriminated against her based on her age by placing her on a PIP and then constructively discharging her. The District Court found for HNTB on the discrimination claims, holding that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Ms. Walsh’s PIP constituted an adverse employment action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) or M.G.L. c. 151B,. The District Court applied the same analysis to Ms. Walsh’s ADEA and 151B claims, noting that “the standards applied for age discrimination claims under federal law and Massachusetts state law are so similar that both claims can be analyzed together.” On March 13, 2026, the First Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling. In doing so, it provided important guidance on the proper adverse-employment-action standard and on when an employer-imposed PIP may satisfy that standard.

SJC protects low-wage earners’ ability to sue for unpaid wages

Published on: April 6, 2026 | by Noah Gillen

Last month, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision protecting the rights of low-wage workers to file lawsuits against their employer for unpaid wages. The decision concerned “anti-SLAPP” motions, which employees may file if, after they sue their employer, their employer countersues them solely to discourage the employee from proceeding with their original lawsuit. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court clarified how judges are required to calculate attorney’s fees for successful appeals of anti-SLAPP claims by employees that are initially rejected by the trial court, and addressed whether judges can reduce an attorney’s fee award based on the amount of unpaid wages being sought.

Background

In Hidalgo v. Watch City Construction Corp., the plaintiff, Andres Hidalgo, who worked as a laborer, sued his employer for violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and related claims. Mr. Hidalgo alleged that he had only been paid for two out of the six weeks he worked and sought $3,738.67 in lost wages. Due to the Wage Act’s treble damages provision, these unpaid wages would amount to $11,216.01 in damages. Watch City denied Mr. Hidalgo’s allegations and brought counterclaims for, among other things, malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Mr. Hidalgo brought a special motion to dismiss Watch City’s counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the claims were brought solely to discourage him from continuing with his lawsuit. After a judge denied Mr. Hidalgo’s motion to dismiss, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the decision and ordered the dismissal of Watch City’s counterclaims.

SJC Weighs Age-Based Firearm Licensing

Published on: March 31, 2026 | by Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP and Jackson Estrin

On March 2, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard oral arguments in Commonwealth v. Mikai P. Thomson, a case that could provide further clarity on the Commonwealth’s ability to implement gun control legislation following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Thomson was convicted of, among other things, carrying a firearm without a license, after police officers found a handgun in his car when they pulled him over in 2021. Thomson now challenges his firearm conviction on the basis that the Massachusetts handgun license law, M.G.L. Chapter 140, §131, which requires license applicants to be 21 years old, is unconstitutional. During oral arguments, the SJC showed signs of sidestepping the Bruen issue as it applies to Thomson, and questioned whether Thomson, who was 20 years old at the time, had legal standing to bring his 2nd Amendment challenge.

Post-Bruen 2nd Amendment cases in Massachusetts

The Thomson case represents yet another chapter in this rapidly evolving area of the law. Since the Supreme Court decided Bruen in 2022, Massachusetts courts have grappled with its proper application. As we have noted, in Bruen, the Supreme Court adopted a history- and tradition-focused test for determining the validity of weapons regulations, directing Courts to look at whether the regulation is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of [weapons] regulation.” In United States v. Rahimi, which was decided in 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the regulation of a federal statute prohibiting persons subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms and provided further guidance in how the lower courts should interpret the principles it outlined in Bruen. In its decision in Rahimi the Court noted that valid gun regulations did not need be a “dead ringer” in relation to historical analogues, or have a “historical twin,” to be valid.

While some universities ink deals with the Trump administration, others are taking the executive branch to court

Published on: March 19, 2026 | by Jacob Bezner

I previously discussed how some universities entered into agreements with the federal government to end civil rights investigations around topics such as antisemitism, transgender rights, DEI initiatives, and student protest. Other schools chose to bring legal challenges to the administration’s efforts to withhold funds to enforce their policy positions and have been prevailing in court.

Ongoing Legal Battles

Though their legal battle is far from complete, Harvard University has found the most success in suing the Trump administration to restore funding. In April 2025, Harvard, and unions representing Harvard faculty and graduate workers, sued the administration for cutting $2.2. billion in funding to the university and its affiliated hospitals that month. The administration argued that these cuts were justified under Title VI because Harvard had supposedly failed to respond appropriately to antisemitism on campus. In September 2025, a federal judge found that these cuts were illegal because, among other issues, the administration did not follow the proper procedure for withdrawing federal grants under Title VI. While this decision restored the flow of federal funding to Harvard for now, the administration has appealed the decision—leaving open the possibility of a reinstatement of the devastating cuts. UCLA won a similar victory last fall when a judge blocked the administration’s proposed funding freeze to that university based on its alleged concerns around antisemitism, transgender athletes, and DEI initiatives. While the administration initially appealed that decision, it dropped the appeal last month.

Should I use AI to get advice on legal claims?: Understanding the potential pitfalls of using AI in a legal context

Published on: March 16, 2026 | by Naomi Shatz

Legal news is filled with stories about how lawyers, litigants, and judges are addressing the use of large language models (LLMs) like Claude and ChatGPT in court cases. While people are becoming used to using AI as a sounding board or search engine, courts are only just now starting to tackle how these tools can be used in lawsuits, and how to treat the information that is put into and generated by AI. What is emerging is a lack of consensus about the circumstances in which information put into or generated by AI tools can or must be disclosed to the other side in a legal case. Because this is a new and developing area, it is critical to talk to a lawyer before you run your case by ChatGPT. CONTINUE READING ›

SJC confirms broad reach of whistleblower protection

Published on: January 29, 2026 | by Noah Gillen

Earlier this week, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision on the rights of public employee whistleblowers. The decision clarified what activity is protected under the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, G. L. c. 149, § 185 (“MWA”), and addressed whether a public employee who is partially responsible for wrongful conduct, but reports the wrongful conduct, can still seek protection under the MWA. CONTINUE READING ›

Leading universities ink deals with the Trump administration

Published on: January 26, 2026 | by Jacob Bezner

Since taking office, the Trump administration has overhauled enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws on college campuses, particularly the laws that prohibit discrimination on the bases of race and sex. Now, less than one year later, six leading universities—the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, Brown University, the University of Virginia, Cornell University, and Northwestern University—have signed deals with the Trump administration. The focus of these deals on specific forms of supposed discrimination occurring on campus—namely antisemitism, “DEI” initiatives, and gender inclusivity in university facilities and athletic programs—illustrate the Trump administration’s enforcement priorities at higher education institutions.

Massachusetts Pay Transparency Law Goes Into Effect

Published on: December 15, 2025 | by Jackson Estrin

Massachusetts Pay Transparency Law Goes Into Effect

In recent years, in an attempt to address concerns related to pay disparities across race, gender and other group classifications, several states have adopted various forms of pay transparency legislation. On a macro level, these laws represent an attempt to remedy pay gaps that have historically existed between workers of different demographic groups. Under a pay transparency regime, workers are provided easier access to information about the pay range of their job, which they are then able to utilize to their advantage when negotiating wages with their employers. On October 29, 2025, the pay transparency provision of “An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency” went into effect in Massachusetts, and Massachusetts joined the growing list of states that have adopted legislation aimed at increasing pay transparency in the workforce.

The SJC limited the scope of the Wage Act. What does that mean for employees?

Published on: November 4, 2025 | by Tess Halpern

The late 1800s and early 1900s constitute a historical period known as the Second Industrial Revolution. While this time period is marked by significant advancements in technology, such as the invention of the lightbulb and the vast expansion of transportation by railroad, it is also marked by the unsanitary and dangerous factory conditions in which millions of people worked.

During this time, the Massachusetts legislature led the nation by outlawing some of the worst ways in which factory owners were taking advantage of employees. For example, the state limited the number of hours children could work each day in 1842, passed the first factory safety and health law in the United States in 1877, and was the first state to adopt a minimum wage law in 1912.