Legal Opinion
Cherella v. Phoenix Technologies Ltd.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided February 13, 1992No. 90-P-827PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
On its face, the plaintiff’s complaint of gender discrimination filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) was late because it was brought in excess of six months after the alleged act of discrimination. See G. L. c. 151B, § 5. A subsequent action which the plaintiff initiated in Superior Court was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment of the defendant Phoenix Technologies Ltd. (Phoenix).1 Impliedly (he gave no reasons for his decision), the motion judge rejected the plaintiff’s contention that she was so impaired by a back ailment as to cause an equitable…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Pederson v. Time, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- Jackson v. Action for Boston Community Development, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
- Melley v. Gillette Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Charland v. Muzi Motors, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Ruffino v. State Street Bank and Trust Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995
- Shervin v. Partners Healthcare System, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015
- Tardanico v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1996
- Pettengill v. CurtisDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2008
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.