<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[disability - Gordon Law Group, LLP]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.gordonllp.com/blog/tags/disability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.gordonllp.com/blog/tags/disability/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Gordon Law Group's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 07:29:46 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Associational Discrimination Illegal in Massachusetts]]></title>
                <link>https://www.gordonllp.com/blog/associational-discrimination-illegal-in-massachusetts/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.gordonllp.com/blog/associational-discrimination-illegal-in-massachusetts/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gordon Law Group]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:46:35 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[associational discrimination]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[disability]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[disability discrimination]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[employment lawyer]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[MCAD]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) protects individuals who are associated with a disabled individual from employment discrimination. However, the ADA only applies to employers with 15 or more workers. The Massachusetts employment discrimination statute is a little more inclusive, covering employers with six or more workers.  Under the ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) protects individuals who are associated with a disabled individual from employment discrimination. However, the ADA only applies to employers with 15 or more workers. The Massachusetts employment discrimination statute is a little more inclusive, covering employers with six or more workers.  Under the ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in <a href="http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/466/466mass23.html"><em>Flagg v. Alimed</em></a>, employees in these smaller companies are also protected from discrimination based on their association with a disabled individual. }</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-details-of-the-case"><strong>Details of the Case</strong></h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>The plaintiff’s wife suffered from a disabling brain tumor, which required extensive hospitalization and created significant medical costs.</li>



<li>During a hospital stay, the plaintiff’s employer discharged him, which cancelled his family health insurance policy.</li>



<li>The plaintiff filed suit, asserting that the employer fired him due to his wife’s disability.</li>



<li>The plaintiff alleged that his employer discharged him because he was associated with his disabled wife.</li>
</ul>



<p>The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the employer illegally discriminated against him under the state’s employment discrimination statute.&nbsp; The ruling gave judicial weight to the long held stance of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination that the state statute covered association with members of a protected class.&nbsp; Now, the highest court in the Commonwealth has weighed in to give employees who are caring for disabled loved ones protection from discriminatory employment practices.</p>



<p>If you have questions about discrimination based on association with a disabled individual,&nbsp;<a href="/contact-us/">contact</a> our office immediately to speak with a trained attorney.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>