Legal Opinion
Alvarez v. City of Lowell
Massachusetts Superior Court
Decided September 30, 2005No. 024841Published
1Opinion of the Court
Billings, Thomas P., J.
For the reasons that follow, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
1. Limitations/Continuing Violation
Both the MCAD’s regulations (formerly 804 CMR 1.03(2), now 804 CMR 1.10(2)) and the common law (see Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n. Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 632, 642 (2004), and Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521, 531 (2001), recognize the “continuing violation” doctrine, under which discriminatory actions taken earlier than six months prior to the filing of a Charge of Discrimination of the MCAD may be…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Nader v. CitronMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Ollie LATTIMORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. POLAROID CORPORATION, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.