Opinion ID: 697653
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ERA and Charland

Text: 11 Enacted in 1989, the Equal Rights Act (ERA), Mass.Gen.L.Ann. ch. 93, Secs. 102, 103, proscribes, inter alia, gender-based discrimination in connection with the execution and enforcement of contracts and provides that [a] person whose rights ... have been violated may commence a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, including the award of compensatory and exemplary damages. Said civil action shall be instituted ... in the superior court.... Id. Sec. 102(b). 12 Later, in Charland v. Muzi Motors, Inc., 417 Mass. 580, 631 N.E.2d 555 (1994), the SJC held that ERA section 102(b) does not excuse claimants from compliance with the comprehensive administrative claims procedure established in FEPA section 9, supra. Rather, in enacting the ERA, the Legislature presumably was aware that FEPA section 9 had long mandated MCAD exhaustion for all employment-based discrimination claims alleging unlawful practice[s]  listed in FEPA section 4. Charland, 631 N.E.2d at 558 (noting legislative intent to subject all discrimination claims to administrative scrutiny) (emphasis added). And since Charland had alleged a breach of his employment contract, arising out of his wrongful discharge based on age and national origin--an employment-based claim actionable under FEPA, see Mass.Gen.L.Ann. ch. 151B, Sec. 4(1) (barring discharge from employment because of national origin or age)--the SJC held that Charland's superior court action must be dismissed for failure to file a timely administrative claim with the MCAD. Charland, 631 N.E.2d at 559; see also Agin v. Federal White Cement, Inc., 417 Mass. 669, 632 N.E.2d 1197, 1199 (1994) (same).