Court Opinion

ID: 9742281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:10:03.750416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:30.619206
License: Public Domain

Greaney, J.
(concurring). I join in the result but think the more proper inquiry might be whether the aspect of the seniority system under consideration is “bona fide.” The exception contained in G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (17) (<z), protects only a “bona fide seniority system” from scrutiny under the provisions of G. L. c. 15IB, which prohibits discrimination be*528cause of sex. A bona fide seniority system would appear to mean, at the very least, a system that does not systematically “evade the purposes of [the statute].” G. L. c. 15IB, § 4 (17) (a). But the provisions of the plaintiff’s collective bargaining agreement, incorporating the school committee’s express policy, manifest a discriminatory intent, cf. School Comm. of Braintree v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 377 Mass. 424, 429 (1979) (discriminatory intent “may be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment”), selectively burdening those members of the community who bear children, by requiring women, in the first instance, to take a leave of absence from their jobs, and then, in the second instance, to return to those jobs with considerably diminished status. If a systematic evasion of the purposes of G. L. c. 15IB exists, the seniority system cannot be bona fide.