The Employment Law Counselor

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD” or “Commission”) has released its Fiscal Year 2025 (“FY25”) Annual Report, covering July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025. The report reflects a year of transition for the agency, including leadership stabilization, structural reforms, increased outreach and continued progress toward replacing its case‑management system. For employers, the report offers important insight into filing trends, backlog conditions, investigative outcomes and adjudicatory activity over the past year.

Complaints Filed in FY25

FY25 saw 3,243 new complaints, continuing the multi‑year trend of elevated filing volume. Of these, 82% (2,658 total) were employment complaints, which remain the overwhelming majority of MCAD filings.

By category, the most frequently raised claims were retaliation (23.8%) and disability (21.9%). Race/color and sex also comprised a substantial number of the claims totaling (16.2%) and (15%) respectively. The remaining categories included age (8.5%); national origin (5.7%); religion and creed (2.1%); and sexual orientation (1.7%).   

The FY25 Backlog

The FY25 Annual Report confirms that the MCAD backlog remains a significant operational challenge. As of fiscal year‑end, 2,342 non‑housing cases were more than 18 months old, continuing a multi‑year increase. While the agency successfully retained staff and backfilled several investigator positions, these improvements have not yet reduced the inventory of aging cases.

The Commission attributed the backlog primarily to persistent high filing volume, deferred hiring caused by FY25 budget constraints and continued reliance on legacy case‑management systems. Although the new Comprehensive Case Management System is expected to streamline intake and investigative workflows once launched in FY26, meaningful backlog relief is unlikely before then.

For employers, the sustained backlog means extended investigation timelines, increased document‑retention burdens and strategic pressure to consider early resolution options.

Claim Determinations and Case Closures in FY25

In FY25, the MCAD issued 1,347 investigative determinations. These determinations consisted of 191 probable cause findings (15%) and, significantly, a whopping 1,045 lack of probable cause determinations (85%). At the close of the fiscal year, the Commission reported 6,224 open cases pending in the investigations stage and an additional 285 cases pending in the post‑probable‑cause stage.

As in prior years, most cases were closed administratively. The largest categories of closures were pre‑determination settlements (32.5%), Chapter 478 removals to court (25.5%), withdrawals without settlement (13.3%), and conciliations (10.4%). Smaller numbers of cases were closed through withdrawn‑with‑settlement resolutions, dismissals, judicial review outcomes, and other administrative mechanisms. Overall, settlement‑based resolutions and court removals continue to comprise the bulk of MCAD closures in FY25.

In Person v. Remote Proceedings

In FY25, the MCAD continued using a hybrid model for adjudicatory proceedings. Public hearings were generally conducted in person, with the parties and the presiding officer required to appear at the Commission’s offices, while the public was provided access via live stream. Hearing Officers retained discretion to allow virtual witness testimony when appropriate.

By contrast, mediations and conciliations remained fully remote, absent special circumstances. The Commission reports that remote ADR continues to be efficient and well‑received by practitioners and parties, and it remains the standard format for dispute‑resolution activities.

ADR in the MCAD

In FY25, the MCAD continued to rely heavily on its Alternative Dispute Resolution Unit to assist parties in resolving cases short of full adjudication. The Unit conducted 305 mediations and 135 conciliations, reflecting the continued importance of ADR at both the pre‑determination and post‑probable‑cause stages.

The ADR Unit continued its efforts to maintain consistent practices across MCAD offices, refine internal procedures and strengthen coordination with investigative and legal staff. It also continued offering late‑stage mediation, including post‑discovery and post‑certification options.

FY25 Hearings Unit Decisions

The MCAD’s Hearings Unit issued seven decisions after public hearing in FY25, two of which were employment matters. They are summarized below.

MCAD and DaSilva v. United Fisherman Club, Inc., 46 MDLR 55 (2024)

In this FY25 employment decision, the complainant alleged that she was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment by her manager during her employment at the United Fisherman Club. According to the decision, the manager repeatedly made sexualized comments that were unwelcome, offensive and directed at the complainant because of her sex. The remarks occurred on multiple occasions and formed a pattern of conduct that the complainant found humiliating and distressing.

Although some of the alleged conduct had occurred outside the 300‑day filing period, the Hearing Commissioner applied the continuing violation doctrine, permitting consideration of earlier acts because the pattern of harassment continued into the limitations period. This allowed the complainant to present a full picture of the sexually hostile work environment she experienced.

The Hearing Commissioner emphasized that Massachusetts law examines the totality of the circumstances when assessing whether a sexually hostile work environment existed. Here, the manager’s repeated sexual remarks were plainly unwelcome, sexual in nature and objectively offensive. The Commissioner found that the conduct unreasonably interfered with the complainant’s ability to perform her job and undermined her sense of safety and dignity in the workplace. As in all cases involving supervisory harassment, the employer was held strictly liable under M.G.L. c. 151B.

The complainant also asserted claims of quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge, but the Commissioner dismissed these portions of the complaint. The record did not establish that the complainant’s submission to or rejection of sexual advances was tied to any tangible employment action, nor was there sufficient evidence that she was terminated for refusing the manager’s conduct.

Ultimately, the Commission found that the United Fisherman Club had subjected the complainant to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Massachusetts anti‑discrimination law. The complainant was awarded $25,000, in emotional distress damages, and the employer was ordered to cease and desist from sexual harassment and ensure that its officers and managers attend MCAD‑provided sexual harassment prevention training. These remedial measures reflect the Commission’s continued emphasis on employer accountability and preventive education in cases involving supervisory misconduct.

MCAD and Andy Nom v. Acton Auto Body, Trinh & Mourato, 46 MDLR 61 (2024)

In this FY25 employment decision, the complainant, Andy Nom, reported that a co‑worker had threatened him and used a racial and national‑origin slur. Although the underlying harassment was untimely, the Hearing Officer found that the employer’s response to Nom’s complaint—not the harassment itself—formed the basis of the actionable retaliation claim.   

Immediately after Nom reported the incident, the employer suspended him without pay, asserting that both employees needed to be separated. The Hearing Officer determined that suspending the reporting party—rather than only the accused—was punitive and would deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. The employer then transferred Nom to another location, which increased his commute and occurred directly after his complaint. Although the transfer did not change his pay, the Hearing Officer found it to be an adverse action because it made his working conditions less desirable. 

The Hearing Officer concluded that both the suspension and transfer were motivated because of Nom’s protected conduct, noting the immediate timing and the lack of a legitimate, non‑retaliatory justification. Nom’s constructive discharge claim and the claims against the individual respondents were dismissed.

As relief, Nom was awarded back pay for the three‑day suspension and $7,500 in emotional distress damages. The employer was also ordered to cease retaliatory practices and have its owners and employees undergo retaliation‑prevention training.

FY25 Full Commission Decisions

In FY25, the Full Commission issued three decisions, of which two were employment cases:

MCAD & Rosa Silva v. Acushnet Co. et al., 46 MDLR 73 (2024)

In MCAD & Rosa Silva v. Acushnet Co., the Complainant brought multiple employment‑based claims—age discrimination, sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation—arising from her suspension and eventual termination from her position at a golf‑ball manufacturing company. She alleged that her supervisors treated her unfairly because she was an older woman, asserting that younger and male employees were disciplined less harshly and were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. In addition, she claimed that management’s conduct created a hostile and discriminatory work environment and that, after she raised concerns about unfair treatment, the employer escalated discipline and ultimately terminated her in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.

On appeal, the Full Commission declined to disturb the Hearing Officer’s findings that the employer’s actions were driven by documented performance issues rather than discriminatory animus. The Commission agreed that the evidence did not support the existence of a hostile work environment tied to protected characteristics and that the timing and content of the employer’s actions did not establish a causal connection necessary for retaliation. Accordingly, the Full Commission affirmed the dismissal of all claims in their entirety.

MCAD & Pavlov v. Happy Floors, Inc. and New Floors, Inc., 47 MDLR 1 (2025)

In MCAD & Pavlov v. Happy Floors, Inc. and New Floors, Inc., the Respondent employer appealed a Hearing Commissioner’s decision finding it liable for sex and pregnancy discrimination. The Respondent’s primary argument on appeal was jurisdictional—asserting that the MCAD lacked authority to hear the case because it did not meet the statutory definition of an “employer” under Chapter 151B, claiming it had fewer than six employees and that its flooring workers were independent contractors rather than employees. The Full Commission rejected these arguments after conducting a detailed analysis of the employment relationship, emphasizing that jurisdiction under Chapter 151B depends on the actual nature of the working relationship, not the labels used by an employer. Reviewing more than twenty non‑exhaustive factors, the Commission concluded that the flooring workers were in fact employees: their work was integral to the business, they did not operate independently, and the Respondent exercised meaningful control over how their work was performed. The Commission underscored that the burden on complainants to establish jurisdiction cannot be so onerous that employers could evade the statute through misclassification or recordkeeping choices.

Having affirmed jurisdiction and the Hearing Commissioner’s findings that the Complainant was subjected to sex and pregnancy discrimination, the Full Commission upheld the awards of emotional distress damages and Commission Counsel fees. Because the Complainant intervened in the appeal and prevailed, the Commission also granted her supplemental attorney’s fees.

For more information about the MCAD’s FY25, please contact R. Victoria Fuller at fullerv@whiteandwilliams.com, 617.748.5223, or William Raven ravenw@whiteandwilliams.com, 617.748.5212.