Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court considers Chelsea's immunity and MCAD jurisdiction in Jane Doe abuse claims
Summary
The consolidated appeals Jane Doe v. Chaffee (24P601, 24P803) addressed whether the City of Chelsea is immune under G. L. c. 258, §10(j), and whether a student-plaintiff needed to file an administrative MCAD complaint before proceeding in superior court under chapter 214 §1C.
Two consolidated appeals, styled Jane Doe number 99 v. Chaffee (24P601, 24P803), were argued April 2 in the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The City of Chelsea asked the court to affirm dismissal of two counts against the city based on immunity under G. L. c. 258, § 10(j) (the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act). Chelsea’s counsel also argued that a parallel statutory scheme governing sex-based harassment in education requires an administrative filing at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) as a prerequisite in some cases. Plaintiff counsel Mark Itzkowitz (joined by Carmen Durso) said the SJC’s recent decision in Thais v. MBTA forecloses MTCA immunity where a plaintiff is directly harmed by an on‑duty…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
