Discrimination Law Process Weighted Against Victims

Discrimination Law Process Weighted Against Victims

Discrimination Law is complicated and esoteric; many lawyers are unfamiliar with it nuances. It is hard for people represented by lawyers, let alone people who are self represented, to win cases.

As a matter of disclosure I, at one time, was an investigator for the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). I believe I was wrongly fired by the MCAD and I have filed a complaint against the MCAD in Worcester Superior Court based on Handicap Discrimination.

There was no surprise when I read in the local daily newspaper that the complaint of racial discrimination in the lack of promotion of two Worcester Police officers was over twenty years old. There was no surprise that the City of Worcester, respondent (employer), could still appeal to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals and then later to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It might take another decade for the Complainants to be made whole, if ever.

The first hurdle faced by the person who has been discriminated against (complainant) is a three hundred day statute of limitation. You miss this deadline and you will likely never be able to file a complaint on the specific discriminatory event.

The next hurdle is the content of the complaint. A wrongly written complaint or a complaint without material facts will likely fail. Good discrimination lawyers are hard to find; they usually are selective in the cases they take and are somewhat expensive. Pro Se complainants seemingly are sometimes like lost children in the woods, especially those complainants without college degrees.

Another barrier is the MCAD investigation. The investigators are usually good honest and hard working people, but they have large caseloads, sometimes over two hundred and fifty cases. Compare this to the twenty five cases that are handled by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigator has as a caseload.

The investigations dismiss over ninety seven percent of the cases at the MCAD. Those cases that are determined to have probable cause are sent to a Public Hearing and only a small percentage of them are adjudicated in favor of the complainants. The hearing officers who decide the Public Hearing cases are the heart and strength of the MCAD goal of eliminating discrimination. They are knowledgeable, well educated, and experienced.

The cases that are won by the complainants in Public Hearings can be appealed to the Full Commission. A Full Commission hearing is a dicey thing for the complainants as all of the Commissioners are political appointees some have little or no experience or even knowledge of discrimination law. It was not a surprise that there were legal errors made by some commissioners in the process.

I am surprised that the Worcester Police officers got a favorable ruling from the MCAD. I wish the officers good fortune in their pursuit of justice.