Case File
A Massachusetts worker sought reemployment under a preference granted by state law, but did the employer have to comply? The full text of the case is on Simply Research.
Case
Ledoux v. Bristol Community College, No. 24-P-1277 (Mass. App. Ct. 01/23/26)
What Happened?
A campus police officer for a Massachusetts community college filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment and gender discrimination. After a human resources employee allegedly threatened to fire the officer is she did not rescind her complaint, the officer suffered a stress-induced seizure.
When the officer attempted to return to work, the college terminated her employment on the ground that she failed to provide proper medical documentation of her recovery.
The officer sued and was awarded damages.
Four years later, the officer applied for another job with the college, and her application was rejected at the screening stage for the purported reason that she lied on her resume.
The officer brought another action, alleging that the college violated the hiring preference requited by the Workers’ Compensation Act and retaliated against her.
A jury found in the officer’s favor, and the court order the college to grant her job as an officer. Later, the college filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. A single justice of the Appeals Court denied the motion, and the college appealed.
Rule of Law
Massachusetts workers’ compensation law provides that any person who has lost a job as a result of a compensable injury shall be given preference in hiring by the employer for whom he worked at the time of compensable injury over any persons not at the time of application for reemployment employed by such employer; provided, however, that a suitable job is available.
The law also provides that in the event that any right is inconsistent with an applicable collective bargaining agreement, the collective bargaining agreement shall prevail.
What the Court Said
The court upheld the single justice’s ruling, explaining that because the CBA did not conflict with the statutory right to a hiring preference, nothing in the law constrains the court’s equitable power to provide a plaintiff relief in the form of a suitable job. as explained in Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. Commissioner of the Dep’t of Mental Retardation (No. 1), 424 Mass. 430 (1997).
“The [college’s] own actions — discriminating against [the officer], violating the hiring preference, and failing to comply with the initial order to propose a suitable job — contravened public policy and necessitated the court’s equitable intervention in the first place,” the court wrote.
The court determined that the single justice did not err in denying the college’s motion.
Verdict: The court affirmed the order of the single justice.
Takeaway
Massachusetts workers’ compensation law provides a hiring preference for workers seeking reemployment with the employer with whom they experienced a workplace injury.
