Massachusetts’ Exclusive Remedy Provision

State Snapshot

State Snapshot		Massachusetts
Exclusive Remedy Provision

BASIC RULE

Workers’ compensation is generally the only remedy available to workers for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. G. L. c. 152, §§ 23-24. Thus, an employee covered by workers’ compensation is typically barred from bringing a negligence or other tort claim against his employer. The exclusive remedy provision essentially immunizes the employer against personal injury claims.

Examples of claims that are subject to the exclusivity rule in Massachusetts are:

• Negligence 
• Unsafe workplace 
• Failure to warn 
• Recklessness
• Gross negligence
• Wilful and wanton misconduct

LAWSUITS AGAINST THIRD PARTIES

Employees may still sue third parties (entities who are not the employer and do not have authority to act on the employer’s behalf0. An example is a manufacturer whose equipment is used at the employer’s place of business and which injures the employee.

INTENTIONAL TORT EXCEPTION

The exclusivity rule is not applicable when an employee brings an action against the employer or a fellow employee who commits an intentional tort. Massachusetts courts have generally been reluctant to allow exceptions for intentional misconduct, however. Thus, the exception applies if the wrongful act was in no way within the scope of employment furthering the interests of the employer.

For example, an employee who is subjected to intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from sexual harassment by a co-employee is not barred by the exclusivity rule from suing that individual.

In Massachusetts, courts often apply the exception to sexual harassment cases. They reason that such conduct is not remotely related to the employer’s interests. Thus, an employee may be able to sue her employer by alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from a co-employee sexual harassment of her.

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE

If the employer has a separate legal persona (e.g., as a manufacturer of a defective product), an employee may try to sue in that capacity if he is injured by that product. Massachusetts courts rarely apply this rule, however.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO CARRY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE

An employee can sue her employer in tort if the employer violated the law by failing to have workers’ compensation coverage.

WILLFUL MISCONDUCT

An employee injured by his employer cannot sue simply because the employer engaged in willful misconduct. The WCA does not make an exception for this type of conduct. It does, however, increase the amount of compensation the injured employee may be able to obtain. See Chapter 152 Section 28 (“If the employee is injured by reason of the serious and wilful misconduct of an employer … the amounts of compensation … shall be doubled.”).

RECENT CASES

Tardiff v. Laborers Int’l Union of North American Local Unit 609, No. 4:23-cv-40115-MRG (D. Mass. 08/15/25)

The office manager for a local labor union alleged that both her manager and supervisor sexually harassed her at work. She stated that at one point, for example, the supervisor allegedly exposed his genitals to her. He also reportedly placed a gun on his desk pointed in her direction. She sued her employer, the manager, and the supervisor for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Her claims were not barred by the exclusivity rule.

Lawless v. Groveland, No. 24-12605-GAO (D. Mass. 07/16/25)

A fire department employee sued his former employer for age discrimination after he was terminated for allegedly revealing COVID-19-related health information about a coworker. Some courts hold that intentional infliction of emotional disturbance claims grounded in sexual harassment can go forward because that harassment can never further the interests of the employer. However, this case was different because the underlying issue related to workplace discrimination, not sexual harassment. 

Luu v. Fallon Serv., Inc., No. 23-P-340 (Mass. App. Ct. 01/30/25)

An emergency medical technician was fired after he photographed an injured patient and used that photograph to report alleged medical misconduct. He argued that his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress was not barred by the exclusivity provision because his employer and supervisor engaged in “serious and willful misconduct.” The court said that the Act, under Chapter 152 Section 28, does not negate the exclusivity of workers' compensation; it merely increases the amount the employee may obtain through workers’ compensation.

Meehan v. Lazer Spot, Inc., No. 23-P-180 (Mass. App. Ct. 09/11/24)

An employee brought a negligence claim against his employer and a coworker. According to the employee, after his shift ended one day and while he was walking to his car, the coworker struck him while driving the company truck. He sued the employer for negligence. Because the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, the exclusivity rule prevented the lawsuit from proceeding.

Looking for exclusive remedy info for your jurisdiction? Look to Simply Research.

Share This Article: