A recent case before the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts resulted in a split decision after an employee failed to file his age discrimination claim within 300 days. The court dismissed the discrimination claim but allowed him to proceed with his retaliation claim.

The employee had worked as a district manager for the auto parts company since 1998. In 2021, at over 60 years old, he experienced what he believed were unfair demotions and discrimination based on his age. His manager made age-related comments, including referring to him as a “dinosaur”. In March 2021, the employee reported the comments to an executive at the company and was put on a performance improvement plan by his manager.

In May 2021, the employee stepped down from his role and became a store manager for the company. While the change in duties was voluntary, the employee stated in his court filings that he felt pressure to move to the less demanding position.

He went on medical leave for one month in November 2021. The day he returned, his manager transferred him to a smaller and less prominent store, and made another age-related comment, saying that the employee was “getting up in years. I can’t have you falling dead on the floor on me.”

The employee filed a claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) on November 21, 2022, for age discrimination and harassment. Given the 300-day statute of limitations, the claim was limited to actions between January 25, 2022, and the date of filing. Since the last alleged discrimination event occurred on December 14, 2021, the MCAD found that the claims were untimely.

The parties to this case had entered into an agreement to “toll” the statute of limitations from October 9, 2022, to December 7, 2022, intended to extend the time for filing an MCAD claim. This type of agreement, while uncommon, is acceptable to the MCAD in limited circumstances when the parties are entering into mediation. The court reviewed the agreement, however, and found that it did not meet the required standards set forth in the MCAD Rules of Procedure in the following ways:

1. No mediator signed off on the agreement;
2. There was no commitment by the attorneys and mediator to conduct the mediation within ninety days;
3. There was no agreement to promptly report the outcome of the mediation to the MCAD Clerk’s office; and
4. The parties did not, consistent with the regulatory scheme, submit the agreement to the Clerk’s office within 300 days after the alleged unlawful conduct.

The employee then proceeded to court with the claims of discrimination and retaliation and added claims of retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA) and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The court affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination and related retaliation claim as time-barred, but found that the PFMLA and FMLA could proceed, as they were timely filed and the “temporal proximity” of the leave and his demotion supported claims of retaliation.

HR Takeaway

This case calls attention to a little-known option of tolling the 300-day statute of limitations for discrimination claims. Employers who are in discussions with an employee about the possibility of a discrimination claim may agree to an extension to preserve the employee’s rights while mediating. But, as the outcome of this case shows, the agreement must meet the very specific requirements set out in MCAD’s regulations.

For More Information

If AIM members have questions about discrimination, retaliation, or any other HR matter, they can contact the AIM HR Helpline at 800-470-6277 or Helpline@aimnet.org. AIM HR Solutions also offers training on harassment prevention and other workplace compliance topics to help organizations stay ahead of risk.