Appeals Court Reaffirms Students’ Right to Sue in Court for Sexual Harassment 

This week, the Appeals Court decided a case examining how students can bring claims under Chapter 151C, the Fair Educational Practices law.  

In Doe 99 v. Cheffi et al., a former public high school student who alleged she had been sexually abused by a teacher sued the City of Chelsea and others for negligence and under Chapter 151C, which prohibits educational institutions from harassing students. The City moved to dismiss the Chapter 151C claim, arguing that the plaintiff was required to file her complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) before she could bring her claim in court. 

As we have previously explained, Chapter 151C provides incredibly limited protection to students in Massachusetts. While it states that it prohibits various forms of discrimination and sexual harassment, it only allows students in vocational schools to file claims under the law for discrimination that occurs in their educational program. The mechanisms for vocational school students to file those claims is to file a complaint with the MCAD. Students like Doe, who are enrolled in non-vocational high schools, have no right to file a claim under 151C. (The Massachusetts school attendance statute does prohibit discrimination in public K-12 education, which would include sexual harassment, and allows students to sue directly in court for violations, but Doe did not bring claims under this law). 

In 1986 the legislature passed a law that prohibits sexual harassment in education and employment. G.L. c. 214, § 1C. This law allows people to file claims for sexual harassment directly in Superior Court, unless the claims is also “actionable” under G.L. c. 151B (for employment discrimination claims) or G.L. c. 151C (for educational discrimination claims). In this case, Doe brought her claim under G.L. c. 214, § 1C. The Appeals Court agreed that this was proper.  

The City argued that Chapter 151C contains a broad prohibition on sexual harassment in education, and thus Doe’s claim was “actionable” under Chapter 151C. But the Appeals Court explained that while Chapter 151C broadly requires educational institutions not to engage sexual harassment, it does not create a cause of action for most students.  The Court noted that—as it had held more than twenty years ago—“only applicants for admission and vocational students may obtain relief under c. 151C.” The Appeals Court emphasized that a claim is not actionable if it does not provide the plaintiff with a remedy. 

While the statutory language is clear, and the Court needed only to interpret it, it took the somewhat odd step of attempting to justify the arbitrary language of Chapter 151C that only confers a right of action on certain students. The Court wrote that it makes sense for the MCAD to address claims of discrimination in vocational institutions because of its “expertise with workplace discrimination,” and claims of discrimination in applications because of the MCAD’s “experience with job applicants.” While this somewhat strained logic may seem plausible when considering claims for sexual harassment, where students who do not fit into these two categories can sue directly in court under Chapter 214, § 1C, it makes no sense when considering that the law purports to protect other students from discrimination, but gives them no cause of action to enforce that right. 

While it is critical that the Legislature amend Chapter 151C to ensure that all students in the Commonwealth have the right to pursue their educations free from discrimination, and have mechanisms to enforce that right, when it comes to sexual harassment the legislature has provided students protection and a right of action under Chapter 214, § 1C and this case confirms that students who are not in vocational schools can bring claims directly in court to enforce that right. 

If you or your child has experienced discrimination or harassment in education, contact our student’s rights lawyers at (617) 742-6020.