Practice Areas

Civil Rights

Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, LLP attorneys regularly represent individuals and families who seek to vindicate their civil and constitutional rights – in the workplace, in public accommodations, in schools, and in their relationship with state agencies and officials. Our work has included representing children with disabilities who were abused or improperly restrained by teachers and litigating against public schools that have discriminated on the basis of race or fostered hazing of students. We regularly represent individuals who have been subjected to discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of such protected categories as race, age, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and veteran status. The firm’s appellate amicus work focuses on strengthening civil rights enforcement mechanisms, to ensure their broadest availability. We have represented the victims of sexual and other assault by law enforcement personnel. Our work has resulted not only in compensation for the victims of these civil rights violations, but also in systemic change to the policies and practices of public schools, state agencies, state hospitals, and other governmental entities.

Representative Cases: Employment

Employment Law Cases

In our employment practice we regularly represent individuals who have been subjected to adverse employment action on the basis of such protected classifications as race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and/or veteran’s status. We also have a robust appellate amicus practice, addressing issues of broad importance in the enforcement of our civil rights laws. These include the following:

Psy-Ed. Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697 (2011)

Represented a number of civil rights advocacay groups as amicus parties in a case establishing that the provisions of G.L.c. 151B which prohibit retaliation and interference with a protected right extends to conduct that occurs after the employment relationship has terminated.

Joulé, Inc. v. Simmons, 459 Mass. 88 (2011)

Represented a broad coalition of civil rights groups as amicus parties in a case establishing that a mandatory arbitration agreement between an employer and an employee does not divest the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination of its statutory authority to investigate and prosecute allegations of discrimination, or to seek victim-specific relief under G.L.c. 151B.

Thurdin v. SEI Boston, Inc., 454 Mass. 436 (2008)

Represented a number of civil rights advocacy groups as amicus parties in a case establishing that G.L.c. 93, § 102, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, provides a right of action to redress on-the-job discrimination in cases where, due to its size, the employer is not subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of G.L.c. 151B.

Trustees of Health and Hospitals v. Coney, 449 Mass. 615 (2007).

On appeal, represented the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and five former employees, all African-American women, who had filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging that their former employer had subjected them to unlawful discrimination when it singled them out for harsh and humiliating treatment in the course of implementing a group layoff. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination had found that the employer had engaged in unlawful conduct and had issued remedial orders that required payment of emotional distress damages and attorneys’ fees. In affirming the decision of the MCAD, the Supreme Judicial Court established that an employer may be liable for unlawful discrimination arising from the manner in which it implements a layoff, and clarified the many ways in which complainants may make a prima facie case under G.L.c. 151B.

Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 549 (2004)

Represented a broad coalition of civil rights advocacy groups, as amicus parties, in a collection of cases raising issues about how G.L.c. 151B, the Commonwealth’s most comprehensive anti-discrimination statute, was properly implemented so that complainants received the full benefit of the enforcement options provided. The Court reaffirmed its holding in Dalis that, where the complainant has opted to pursue a private right of action in in court, the parties to that judicial proceeding have a right to a jury trial. Where the complainant has opted to proceed under the administrative enforcement scheme set forth in G.L.c. 151B, § 5, Court made clear that there is no constitutional obstacle to allowing the MCAD’s administrative proceedings to take its course. Overruling prior precedent, the Court found no constitutional obstacle to the statute’s administrative scheme, which empowers MCAD to issue binding remedial orders, including monetary relief, where necessary and appropriate.

Dalis v. Buyer Advertising, Inc., 418 Mass. 220 (1994)

Represented the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts as an amicus party in a case raising the question whether there was a right to a jury trial in claims arising under a variety of state anti-discrimination statutes. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court established that, under the Declaration of Rights, the right to a jury trial attaches to civil actions filed in court under G.L.c. 151B, § 9 (alleging discrimination in employment), as well as to claims arising under the Equal Pay Act, G.L.c. 149, §§ 105A-C, the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, G.L.c. 93, § 102, and the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act, G.L.c.149, § 105D.

Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Management, Inc.

Represented a number of civil rights advocacy groups as amicus parties in a case that reaffirmed the important role of fee-shifting provisions in the enforcement of civil rights statutes.

Representative Cases: Child Abuse

Child Abuse Cases

  • Three children with significant disabilities were abused by their teacher over the course of several years. A new classroom aide produced a written diary of this abuse, leading to the firing and ultimate criminal prosecution of the teacher. Civil suit was brought against various school administrators and entities for failing to properly respond to earlier reports of abuse by the teacher. After two weeks of trial, the case settled for $1.5 million.
  • Two children with autism were repeatedly restrained as part of a purported “behavior modification” plan. The plan included “floor restraints” where the students were pinned face down on the floor for uncooperative behavior. Both matters settled after suit was filed in federal district court.
  • Children with autism spectrum disorders were placed with an inexperienced and unqualified teacher who reluctantly took over the children’s classroom. The teacher pushed, dragged and otherwise manhandled one student, resulting in physical injuries to him as well as emotional trauma to him and his classmates. The case settled during administrative proceedings prior to filing suit in state or federal court.

Please Note:

Emailing Kotin, Crabtree & Strong, LLP or any of the firm’s attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and our firm.

Communications received or sent via this website may not be subject to attorney-client privilege and may not be confidential. Do not email confidential information to us.

If you have any questions, please contact us at 617-277-7031.